Hooray, you made it another week. Now, enjoy our regular round-up of funny evolution/creationism-related news and other ICYMI stuff.
Another meme about ‘observable’ evidence for macro-evolution
Continuing a meme series I officially started a couple weeks ago, I present another installment you can file under “Here’s why Ray Comfort’s demand for ‘observable’ evidence of macro-evolution makes no sense.”
If (OK, when) a young-earth creationist tries to pull this one on you, sure, you could talk about Lenski’s bacteria, or stickleback fish, or the many other examples of evolution in action that have been observed, both in the lab and in nature. But they’ll just say that’s not evolution.
So you could bring up the fossil record, or nested hierarchies, or genetic homology, or the many other lines of evidence that point toward macro-evolution and common descent. But they’ll just say that evidence is not observable. And around and around you will go.
I say, save yourself some time and frustration, and just point out how the entire line of questioning is D.O.A., because it is taking a process that happens slowly and gradually, and asking for evidence of it happening quickly and abruptly. Such evidence would not prove Darwin right; it would prove him wrong.
That’s right, sports fans: Those who put forth this argument are ultimately demanding evidence that would only exist if the theory were false. So call them on it. And if (OK, when) they persist, tell them you’ll provide such evidence when they demonstrate how rain can chair fences blue.
Ken Ham likes big butts? And he cannot lie?The Sensuous Curmudgeon shares Ken Ham’s thoughts on why women tragically no longer look like this fertility statue, thanks to that wretched Eve and her sin. So… many… jokes… Too… many… song… titles…
Anyway. Though funny, the article fails to capitalize on two glaring weaknesses in Ham’s argument. First, Genesis 3:16 does not say God would increase the pain of childbirth for all women; it says he would increase it for one woman. The one who disobeyed. And who, therefore, deserved punishment. Sounds fair, eh?
Secondly, the text doesn’t teach, as Ham claims, that — absent the “curse” — the woman would have had no pain in childbirth. Quite the opposite, actually; it says God would “increase,” or “multiply,” her pain. The Hebrew word, “rabah,” is the same one used in Genesis 1 when God instructs birds and fish and humans to “multiply” and fill the earth. It speaks to an increase of something already in existence, not the appearance of something entirely new (“multiplying” zero by anything is zero).
So, even if you interpret this particular text entirely literally, it does not conflict with the biologically based suggestions for why humans have painful childbirths (to which Ham was originally responding), because all it says is that one woman in history experienced a greater degree of pain in birth than she was already going to.
Because the Curmudgeon is not a Christian and makes no claim as such, he can be excused for overlooking these biblical teachings. Ol’ Hambone, not so much.
Author and educator Karl Giberson talks about his journey from Christian fundamentalism and literalism, and why he argues so strongly against it today: How Christianity cast Adam as the original sinner
Ken Ham finally explains why I get uncontrollable urges to cheat on my wife every single time I think about the theory of evolution: Ken Ham Says Christians Who Accept Evolution May Also Falsely Justify Adultery and Other ‘Sinful Tendencies’