I woke up this morning, like I do every morning, pleasantly refreshed from my latest dream, nay, fantasy, of prancing about the perfection that is the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum. You will understand my astonishment when I logged onto my computer to find Ken Ham claiming the museum was never perfect, that it had been missing something. And, even worse, that this something was the devil himself – Charles “666″ Darwin.
“We wanted to show people that creationists believe in natural selection,” said Ken Ham, founder of the Christian ministry Answers in Genesis and frequent Darwin critic.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Mr. Ham – if that’s even your real name – why would go off and add the evil C Dizzle to such a warm, fuzzy, perfect and Godly museum? I never had a problem accepting your Biblical take on creation, on the coeval humans and dinosaurs of ten centuries ago, but now you go and bring in this evidence-based theory of evolution? Pfft. If I agreed with all that evidence supported what would I need faith for? Bad move, Hamie. Bad move…
Before I spend $21.95 for my next weekly visit, I need to know what it is I’ll be getting myself into. I don’t want to be preached to by a bunch of people who’s claims are completely legitimate, and supported by reality. What are we dealing with here?
Visitors to the exhibit are greeted by a large sign that reads: “Natural Selection is not Evolution.”
Okay… I kinda like it. It’s almost like you say you’re bringing Darwin into the museum, when in fact you’re completely perverting his theory and making it fit your faith convictions.
“The exhibit is to clearly show that natural selection is not a mechanism to change one kind of animal into a totally different kind,” Ham said. For example, he said, dogs can develop new traits from one generation to the next, but they remain dogs.
This is beautiful! I know exactly what you mean. I’ve had little Suzie the shitzu for 5 years now, and she’s still a dog today. I mean, if this devil-man was right I would expect to have seen a lizard or maybe even a capibarra by now. Hamie, I can’t believe I ever doubted you!
One question, though: will there by an animatronic Darwin?
[AP]
For example, he said, dogs can develop new traits from one generation to the next, but they remain dogs.
Wow, the semantics are killing me! A change in traits from one generation to the next is… isn’t that… I do believe that is what is called evolution? But Ham says development? I wonder if this is going to confused all the poor home-schooled kids so much that not only evolutionary biology, but also developmental biology, is going to be off-limits in college?
But seriously, what we call both great danes and chihuahuas dogs is a matter of semantics, and have no bearing on biology. Under some species definitions they are one species, but under other they might be different species. They may all be able to interbreed (but do we know?) and yet they clearly inhabit different niches. Dachshunds couldn’t do the job of shepherds, who couldn’t do the job of beagles, who couldn’t do the job of huskies, etc. etc. That alone is enough to designate them as different species.