the amazing, evolving creationism
Once again, the concept of descent proves just too difficult for creationists to understand, or at least argue about in good faith.
You might think that creationists are incapable of accepting basic scientific facts such as bacteria evolving to become more resistant to our disinfectants and antibiotics. To fix this misconception, the Creation Museum has a new exhibit which is in agreement with Darwin's theory of natural selection. No, you read that right. You see, by trying to showcase natural selection at work, they're trying to prove that it's impossible for one type of animal to change into something completely different. Ah, good old, reliable semantics…
As I've mentioned in a recent post, organisms don't turn into something different. Instead, the constant mutations in animal, plant and bacterial genomes let them branch off into new species. They're all related via a network of common ancestors and it's very hard to say when one species ends and another begins in the fossil record. Some species might split into several branches and evolve side by side for millions of years.
The classic creationist argument of dogs developing new traits but remaining dogs doesn't make any sense when put in its proper context. What do they expect them to become? Giant space lizards with six eyes?
We could have multiple populations of dogs that were isolated from each other long enough to develop their own, unique traits and refuse to interbreed with the exception of rare cases. They would become different species and those which were best suited to the environment in which they lived would survive the longest. That's how natural selection works.
Organisms branch off as time goes on and over millions of years and countless mutations along with changes in their environments and predation, only a few branches survive while the rest go extinct. So it seems that Answers in Genesis is incorporating the basic principles of natural selection and evolution, but uses them in much the same way a D student answers an essay question on a biology test. The really interesting part is that this is not a new development.
Believe it or not, creationists have consistently adapted major parts of evolutionary theory and then went out of their way to jam something about the supernatural into them because they're either unaware of the science behind them or don't want to be aware of it. A good example is a widespread creationist belief that microevolution is a fact and macroevolution is just some odd fairy tale told by Darwin and his followers.
Creationists don't seem to understand that the very thing that drives microevolution also drives macroevolution. If bacterial colonies can undergo mutations and branch off into various strains that then either thrive or die off in an accelerated example of natural selection, why would this mechanism suddenly stop working in an animal? Does macro life not have genetic material like its micro counterparts?
And another thing that doesn't make sense is that Answers in Genesis boss, Ken Ham, declares that Darwin's natural selection can happily coexist with creationism, yet teaches that racism is a primary driver behind the theory of evolution and the evils of the Holocaust and eugenics are all attributable directly to "Darwinism." According to him, Darwin's tome is just short of the gas chambers at Auschwitz but the very theory he's been decrying as a racist myth can play a huge role in creationism.
What's going on here? Why does Ham feel the need to dress up creationism with legitimate science which he proceeds to butcher and distort to near-absurdity? Why open an exhibit in celebration of the theory of the man he and other creationists slander as a racist, a eugenicist and a borderline Nazi? If your conviction lies on the basis of the supernatural, why even try to conceal it with distorted technobabble?
