Ham and the "Facts"
KEN HAM ON EDUCATION: Creation/evolution - the facts are the SAME!
Home Education Weekly News -- 8 August 2003
Mr Ham: Creationists and evolutionists have exactly the same information.
Not really. Scientists have information, creationists have misinformation, a lot of abject denial, and a whole lot of closed eyes, as we'll see in a second.
Think about it this way. Creationists and evolutionists have the same earth - the same fossils, the same plants and animals, in fact, they have the same universe.
Creationists live on an Earth where mangroves can run to higher ground, at least, that's what I've been told.
You see, the FACTS are the same. What's different is the way in which they are interpreted.
But creationists refuse to interpret them. This claim is something creationists have been making for years. It's odd, one minute they're proclaiming that creationism is the only theory that makes sense, and the next they're making this empty plea for equality with the theory they claim is worthless. What makes it even more laughable is that despite claiming that creationism is just interpretation of the evidence, the fact is that creationism is mostly denial of the evidence.
Consider the following FACTS Mr Ham (upper case provided so you can feel right at home):
1. Flowering plants are found at the top of the fossil record (Cretaceous and above).
2. Ammonites are sorted in a relatively narrow band in the middle of the fossil record, while nautilus are sorted broadly. (Ammonites: Mesozoic and a bit before. Nautilus: From the Cambrian to the present, nearly the entire range of animal life)
3. No modern-type coral reef is found until the Cretaceous and above.
4. Icthyosaurs (Mesozoic) and dolphins (Cenozoic) are never found together as fossils.
These are facts. If creationism is just another interpretation of the facts, then they should be able to interpret these facts. But they can't. For over a decade, I've been asking creationists to explain these and many other aspects of fossil sorting. Others have been asking far longer. And that's just fossil sorting, we could expand the list to include stands of trees far older than 6000 years without a hint of a global flood, much less the creation of the world, astronomical events before time began, human's quadruped style backbone, the twin-nested hierarchy, the human and chimp sharing of identically damaged vitamin C genes, the chimp growth regulator that humans have with a transposon [See Note 1 below] in it, a huge number of problems with Noah's ark, etc., etc.
Creationists aren't in the business of
interpreting the evidence, they are in the business of ignoring the evidence.
Ham can claim we have the same facts all he wants, but why is he ignoring so many of those facts?
Once again Mr Ham you spread the lie about Christians somehow inherently being creationists. You like this lie best, because everything else you believe depends on it.
....start with the Bible, they build a way of thinking based on God's Word.
Well, it has to be based on your interpretation of "God's" word Mr Ham, or else you aren't a "real Christian". Creationism is basically a cult of yours and the other YEC leaders. They even make you sign an oath swearing to support their interpretation above all else, no matter what the facts turn out to be. Sad.
For instance, they know God created distinct KINDS of animals and plants, there was a global Flood just a few thousand years ago, and there was no death before sin.
And if they "know" these things, they cannot be scientists.
Science starts with accepting that we don't know anything, and works by comparing theory with evidence. Creationism starts with the delusion that humans can absolutely know something, then tacks on their particular brand of fable, literally interpreted.
All of these things affect how a creationist interprets fossils, plants, animals, and so on.
But creationists don't interpret the fossils, plants, animals, or so on. Creationists pick and chose carefully selected examples to interpret, and ignore the vast majority of everything else.
Now the evolutionist starts with the belief that life arose by chance,....
A lie, as history reveals. 200 years ago, all scientists were effectively creationists (although even they would have regarded modern YEC as idiocy). 150 years ago, most weren't. Thus, they clearly started off with a completely different assumption. But you won't admit this, of course, Mr Ham.
....that one KIND of animal changed into another over millions of years,....
Evolution and creationism do share one thing. Evolution doesn't believe that "kind", in the creationist sense, has any meaning, and creationists refuse to define it. Thus, "kind" is meaningless to both.
....and that death has always been here.
Gosh, and all that annoying evidence won't change your mind about that at all, will it?
Thus they have a totally different way of interpreting the SAME evidence.
Well, it's completely different, I'll agree, but I still don't see creationists interpreting any evidence.
The exciting thing, though, is the Christian can logically defend the interpretation based on the Bible -the evolutionists can't!
Yawn! We're still waiting for some answers Mr Ham. Why are the modern-style coral reefs at the top of the fossil record? Let's look at all of the proposed creationist fossil sorting mechanisms, their grand "interpretations" of the fossil record:
1. "Some species out ran the rising flood waters better than others."
While I have had creationists insist that this explains plant sorting, none have yet tried to claim that modern coral runs faster than primitive corals, dinosaurs and anomalocaris. [See Note 2 below] I'll leave it to your imagination to decide exactly how well supported this "interpretation" is.
2. "Fossils are sorted where their ecological zones would be."
This nonsense is generally given along with selected examples, none of which actually work, but it's clearly silly for the coral, unless creationists maintain that corals lived in the mountains before the flood.
3. "The action of the flood sorted them hydro dynamically." So, coral floats in the creationist world? Certainly, it floats faster than all of the Palaeozoic animals.
Keep in mind that I'm talking about coral reefs here, not isolated patches of coral. I'm talking about preserved ecosystems of coral, sponge and mollusc. The modern assemblage doesn't appear until the top of the fossil record. I ask the creationists time and again "why is this the case"?
And the creationist interpretation? So far, it's been a lot of fleeing. Not a single creationist has ever even attempted to interpret this evidence. The question is either ignored, or the creationist chooses to deny the facts rather than interpret them.
But for once Mr Ham you're correct. Evolutionists (whatever you mean by that noun) certainly can't defend their interpretations based on the Bible. And thankfully, my GP doesn't interpret my test results by the Bible, either. And my mechanic doesn't turn his face skywards and entreat "There is a demon in this gearbox. Oh Lord, heal this car."
Note 1: Transposon - a segment of DNA that is capable of independently replicating itself and inserting the copy into a new position within the same or another chromosome or plasmid.
Note 2: Anomalocaris - large, active, swimming, visual hunters with spiny grasping appendages and weird, circular mouths lined with teeth.