Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Hugh Ross on Evolution

Sandwalk points us to a two minute video of Hugh Ross in which he tries to educate an audience on evolution and fails miserably. He clearly knows nothing about either evolution or the fossil record. This is embarrassing.

For one thing, he states that most mutations are harmful. Mutations are only harmful if they disrupt the genome in such a way that reduced fitness is conferred on the organism. Many mutations are fitness neutral. Mutations do not drive a species to extinction, changing environments drive a species to extinction. That is basic evolutionary ecology. This is worse than William Dembski's math.

He talks about the fossil record by asking where you see the evidence for transitional forms and then focuses only on whales and horses. That is ridiculous. There are transitional forms all over the fossil record at every major level. If this is really the biology coming out of RTB then Todd Wood is correct, they absolutely cannot be trusted for anything.

The comments on Sandwalk's page are priceless. One in particular: “So why didn't God make more dinosaurs and unicorns and dodo birds? Or maybe he just doesn't love them as much as he loves horses and whales. He sure seems to love roaches and bedbugs, too.”



  1. If this is really the biology coming out of RTB then Todd Wood is correct, they absolutely cannot be trusted for anything.

    That footage is a bit dated. In the video Ross is sitting with Kent Hovind, who is currently serving an eight-year sentence for tax evasion. He started serving it in 2007.

    Despite the clip being at least three years old I'd wager good money that the same arguments are still made on the RTB website. Any takers?

  2. I think that, judging from the work of Todd Wood and Steve Matheson, we can assume that not much has changed. Thanks for the heads up, though.

    I saw where someone had a clock showing how long it would be before Hovind would be released from prison. Can't remember where I saw it, though.

  3. I had a quick look at RTB's website and their publications - and I wasn't impressed. The majority of the contents seem to be that sort of writing where some "amazing/interesting" facts are connected, and then briefly baptised with a dose of Christianese comments on design, and then left. Better written than most, but of no real consequence.

    I find that kind of thing quite embarrasing, and would hide its existence from my non-believing scientific (mostly geologist) colleagues.

  4. Sadly, most of my Christian friends who are even remotely interested in the debate are aware of the site but not the vacuity of the arguments. The problem, to which you allude, is that the arguments have the veneer of “science” and so seem impressive at first blush. Most are not prepared to evaluate them critically, however.