Ken Ham's view of the origin of species is impossible

A little over two years ago, Bill Nye and Ken Ham had a debate on their views of origins, with Ham arguing that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and Nye that it is much older than that.

In a recent post, Natural Historian, (Joel Duff) takes a close look at Ham's views, and finds that they are not compatible with the Bible, or with the way things are now.

Natural Historian uses a slide from the debate, which slide shows Ham's view on the origin of the species of animals now living on earth. That view is that there were a few kinds of animals (dog-like, cat-like, etc.) on the ark, in pairs, but that since the Flood, about 4500 years ago, these kinds gave rise to all the dog-like and cat-like species we have today, plus any that are now extinct, but known from their fossils. See here for a discussion of this, from a young-earth creationist viewpoint.

Natural Historian says that this is impossible, because there are so many species of animals today, that, if they all arose from a much smaller number of ancestral types, the new species would have had to evolve at a very rapid rate, so rapid that we would find it easy to observe new species arising during recent time. We haven't seen any such thing. Also, Natural Historian says that there is no indication, in the Bible, but that dogs were dogs, camels were camels, etc., way back in Biblical times, even in Job, which was supposedly written soon after the Flood. The Bible, says Natural Historian, describes about 100 species of animals, with no indication that any of them were different, in Bible times, from those in existence today. Illustrations of animals, by ancient peoples, show no differences between those animals and those now alive.

There are, for example, about 80 known species of cats, currently living and extinct, and well over 100 species of living and extinct species of dogs.

Interesting, to be sure. Thanks for reading. For further reading on my own views of origins, see here. See also my post on "What's wrong with young-earth creationism."

One reaction to the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate

This post summarizes the Ken Ham Bill Nye debate well, and brings out some important points.

Thanks for reading.

Debate: Bill Nye (The Science Guy) vs. Ken Ham

The BioLogos forum has a post on the upcoming debate between Bill Nye (The Science Guy, of TV fame) and Ken Ham, of Answers in Genesis.

As the post points out, the debate is apparently going to assume that the Bible and science are diametrically opposed alternatives, and you have to choose one or the other. This unfortunately puts aside what Christians should really be, and are, opposed to -- naturalism, not evolution. (All Christians that I know of believe in at least some evolution.) The idea that the Bible and science are exclusive alternatives also puts aside the fact that Christians have different views of origins. And it puts aside scripture that indicates that God reveals Himself, in part, through what we can learn about nature. I don't know a lot about Bill Nye, and not much more about Ken Ham, but, whether Ham is right or wrong, he's going to get a lot more publicity, and a lot more contributions, if he claims that scientists are nothing but a bunch of God-hating atheists, than if he were to take a less strident tone. Some scientists are rabid atheists, of course, but most of them aren't.

Thanks for reading.