Apologetics, Take Three (Evolution)
Posted in Apologetics, Evolution, Nick's Posts 7 comments
If you’ve been following my series on apologetics, then you may recall that in the first week, I recommended a couple of highly educated authorities on the subject. One of those was Ken Ham. Today I’d like to share a highly condensed version of what Mr. Ham has to say on the theory of evolution. If you are interested in Mr. Ham’s ideas, you should check out one of his books or a video of him speaking, because his ideas are much more clearly conveyed in those. Plus, he has a great sense of humor. :)
Mr. Ham tells about when he and his wife went to an evolution museum in London. They saw an exhibit on dogs and how dogs have changed over the ages. Then they saw an exhibit on horses and how horses have changed over the ages. This continued until they got to the end and they saw something that said that now they have seen the proof of evolution. How could that be, though, they thought? They must’ve missed it.
But no. They didn’t miss anything. What they saw was the same thing that is being taught in colleges and universities across the world. We are being indoctrinated to believe that changes within a species are somehow proof of evolution from molecules to man. This is, quite simply, not true.
The foundations of evolution rest on the presumption that organisms get more information in their DNA as they become more “evolved.” This, too, is false. It’s actually quite the opposite.
Mr. Ham uses dogs to illustrate his point. In the beginning, there were two dogs, and they had all of the genetic possibilities of every dog today. On down the line, a group of them migrated north, where the short-haired dogs died out because they couldn’t handle the cold. At that point, the only dogs left were the ones who only had the genetic information for long hair. So, the remaining dogs LOST information from their DNA instead of gaining it. It was still survival of the fittest, but the remaining dogs have less genetic possibilities than their ancestors, because they no longer have the ability to re-introduce short hair into their population.
In light of this, most evolutionists point at mutations as the “curve ball” that adds information to the DNA. However, Mr. Ham points out that even mutations result in a lack of information.
For example, there was a bacteria that became resistant to a medicine because of a genetic mutation. Evolutionists point at that as proof that mutations add information. The truth, though, is hidden in the details. The way that medicine worked was this. It was absorbed into the bacteria. The bacteria would then break it down and convert it into an enzyme. The resulting enzyme was poisonous to the bacteria and would kill it. But then the mutation came about. The mutation removed the information that allowed the bacteria to create the enzyme. Since the enzyme was not produced, the bacteria would not die. So, while the end result was that the bacteria became resistant to the medicine, the reason for it was a LOSS of information as a result of a mutation.
Ultimately, a gain of DNA information is necessary in order for molecule to man evolution to be possible. After all, we have WAY more DNA information than single celled organisms. A gain of DNA information is also the only thing that evolutionists cannot produce evidence for. They can’t produce evidence because the evidence just isn’t there. We refuse to accept this because of the implications.