The Great Genetic Bottleneck that Contradicts Ken Ham’s Radical Accelerated Diversification (ie. Post-Flood Hyper-Evolution)

The absurdities of Ken Ham and “Creation Science.”

Naturalis Historia

How can a population of organisms reproduce and over time become several hundred species each of which has its own menagerie of characteristics? This is a fundamental evolutionary question for which many different mechanisms have been proposed as solutions over the past 200 years.  With AiG’s Ark Encounter nearing completion Ken Ham is about to put on display his – and AiGs – own understanding of how thousands of species found their origins in a small number of common ancestors.  In other words, he will be more visibly promoting his alternative view of the origin of species that he has been promoting for some time. However, most lay Christians and the general public are likely not familiar with this view I have called radical accelerated diversification. Unfortunately for Ken Ham, the very Ark that he will be promoting as a Christian theme attraction presents the most compelling observational evidence that undermines his own interpretation of the origins of species.

View original post 1,946 more words

5 thoughts on “The Great Genetic Bottleneck that Contradicts Ken Ham’s Radical Accelerated Diversification (ie. Post-Flood Hyper-Evolution)

  1. well, finally, a post that deals with an issue that’s been keeping me up all night. Just an aside, is there any segment of Christianity that you aren’t eager to attack? Another aside, seeing as how you embrace evolution, can you come up with one, just one, single irrefutable fact that proves evolution, one that is embrace, without reservation, by the complete evolution community. I am, of course, referring to Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolution. Why are former evolutionists, by the hundreds and hundreds, continuously fleeing to intelligent design, much to the consternation of Richard dawkins, et al.? And exactly how does this post edify the body of Christ, which you make vague claims of membership in? Are you swallowing a camel while choking on a gnat?
    What are you trying to achieve? Do you envision yourself a shepherd, protecting the sheep. Or are you a wolf? And by the way, seeing as how you brought it up, via your posting referencing Rob Skiba. Seeing as how one is often identified with the company he or she keeps, are you in alignment with Skiba’s heretical view of the Trinity. Surely you realize that by referring people to his site that they may come in contact with his views and teachings. May one assume you are in agreement with them? Just wondering.


  2. This is very well-reasoned and makes perfect sense. The problem with these endless arguments that try to resolve the Bible with modern science is that both sides assume a cosmology that is both materialistic and uniformitarian. In other words, our reality only unfolds according to fixed laws observable in nature, and those laws can never change throughout the history of the cosmos. I believe this is a trap. (Albeit one to which the cutting edge of modern physics May hold a key.)

    The Bible makes straightforward claims that events took place, without offering scientific explanations as to how they were accomplished. If Christians get entangled in the pop science trap, either we must postulate a scenario that conforms to Modern scientific observation, or we must craft a hermeneutic that allows the Bible to be true without requiring it’s literal sounding claims to be taken as such. How about this one…

    A man’s body is lacerated almost beyond recognition, he is suffocated by crucifixion, and most of his blood is drained in front of hundreds of witnesses. After three days and nights lying in a tomb his cells regenerate, his wounds heal, and he rejoins his companions, not as a spirit but as flesh and bone, eating and drinking with them. Absolutely no scientific explanation, but if it didn’t happen we don’t need to be having this conversation.

    Quantum physics says that all future events including the next moment are only possibilities of varying probability. With God, all things are possible.


  3. Peter Good game nailing it again. I have seen Ken Ham speak twice in my past and when he presents himself to an uneducated crowd, he seems very convincing. It takes guts to want to question the Ken Ham ideology in Evangelical churches these days. It’s time it’s done….good job Peter.


  4. uneducated crowds? Were you in it? guts to question the Ken Ham ideology in evangelical circles these days? Seriously? Only an incredibly small percentage of evangelicals even know who Ken Ham is, much less his “ideology”. It’s time it’s done. Amen. It’s time to insert the chips that will make us all agree with whoever thinks he or she is the smartest and most powerful. You’re right!!!!!! Down with different opinions.. Kill all who disagree!!!! Yes!!!!!! Zeig………………………..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s