home1.gif (2214 bytes)

Ken Ham Thinks Evolution is "Not Practical"
Michael Suttkus and Cheryl Capra

KEN HAM ON EDUCATION! -- Evolution--is it "practical"?
Home Education Weekly News - March 29, 2002

Ken Ham:   Question:  If, as evolutionists insist, evolution is a foundational part of science today, then shouldn't it somehow help scientists in developing current technology?

Evolution is a foundation of biological science and an understanding of its premises has helped to produce, amongst many other developments, the important medical technologies of  immunology.

Ken Ham
:   Answer: You're right - if evolution really were science (which it isn't, of course), then it should be vital in all areas of scientific research, medicine and technology, for instance.

One thing Mr Ham avoids mentioning is that creationism has nothing at all to offer science.  Creationism has nothing to offer science because it has no theory.  All mysteries are explained by invoking God, all problems simply swept under the carpet with the one non-explanation they've got.  Indeed, all sciences start when supernatural explanations are rejected in favor of seeking naturalistic answers.

Ken Ham
:   I once got a phone call from a man who said he was a Christian.  He was very upset with me because he'd heard me lecture against evolution ...

Lecture?  More like "flail wildly" against evolution.

Ken Ham:   ... He said that evolution "binds" all of science together, and if scientists don’t believe it, they won't be able to develop any new technology.

Technology isn't the end goal of science.  However, it's clear from history that evolution began the science of biology.  Prior to that, all we had was natural history.

Ken Ham
:   I asked him to give me just one example where evolution had helped advance science.   He answered by saying "medicine".  Then I asked him for a specific instance in the area of medicine which was advanced by an understanding of evolution.  Well, he was stumped. 

Mr Ham's caller may have been stumped and Mr Ham may be stumped but I'm not.  One answer is antibiotics.  Most people try and put it down to an accident that penicillin was found, but the investigation into fungi as sources of useful antibiotic chemicals was founded on evolutionary theory, as has all subsequent new antibiotics. 

Every element of genetic therapy owes its existence to evolution as genetics was discovered through an understanding that for evolution to work, genetic "factors" had to be particulate.

Ken Ham
:   I told him I could give him examples where evolution had caused medical research to go backwards.  For instance, doctors once believed that our appendix was left over from our evolutionary ancestors, so they'd remove it for no reason!

It was not evolution that jumped up and gave us the wrong take on the role of the appendix, it was lack of knowledge. In fact this whole saga merely illuminates for us one of Mr Ham's frequent "pork pies" [lies]. Science revises what is claimed in the light of new evidence and that is exactly what has happened with regard to tonsils and the appendix. They are now regarded as having a role in immune system functioning and research is continuing into their  immunological function by a branch of medical research that relies heavily on the fact of evolution. Funny isn't it that creationists were not the ones to point out these aspects of our appendix and tonsils. The task was left to the "evolutionists" namely immunologists. That the appendix is a vestigal organ though, having once had a role in the degestive system of
distant animal ancestors is still supported by the evidence. What is possible though is that evolution has co-opted an organ already present for an entirely different use in modern humans. And that is exactly how we see evolution working throughout the aeons. Mr Ham's so-called anti-evolutionary appendix example is nothing of the sort but merely furthrt evidence of his ignorance and deception.

Ken Ham
:   I then asked him for one example where evolution had helped build any part of the space shuttle.  Of course, he couldn't.

Why in the world would we expect evolution to be helping rocket science?  I guess Mr Ham really is as dumb as he seems if he considers this a legitimate question.  But let's turn it back on him.  How many parts of the space shuttle has creationism built?  Zero, naturally.

Ken Ham
:   Scientists have been able to develop technology because God created a real world which operates in an orderly fashion.

Like the fossils.  Funny how all those oil companies find oil based on evolutionary interpretations of the fossil record.  Funny how they work so much better than creationism's non-explanations of the same phenomena.

arr01.jpg (1314 bytes)

home1.gif (2214 bytes)