A RESPONSE TO KEN HAM’S RESPONSE TO THE LEDI JAW

Ken Ham responded to the latest Ledi jaw discovery on his blog. This is a jaw bone from around 2.8 mya (million years ago). Scientists have determined that the jaw belonged to a possibly the earliest species of homo and sometime shortly after ustralopithecus afarensis. Of course, most of what Ken Ham has to say comes down to worldviews, observational evidence, etc. I want to focus on a particular passage where he says:

“…they desperately need a transitional form to fill the “gap” between apes like Lucy and the varieties of humans whose fossils appear deepest in the fossil record. Therefore, they interpret this fossil as the missing link they need.”

Notice how he says they desperately need a transitional form to fill the gap between apes like Lucy and the most ancient humans. This is just flat out false. Scientists do not desperately need a transitional form. There are already plenty of fossils that substantiate human evolution. Another fossil is just icing on the cake so to speak.

“No matter what evolutionary scientists claim about fossils like this, the truth is it is that while a fossil could be human or could be an ape, it could never be a transitional form.”

Here we come to the crux of the matter. For Ken Ham’s interpretation of Scripture, it could never be a transitional form. Ever. But for scientists, it doesn’t have to be a transitional form. It could a modern or ancient ape, or australopithecus, or it could be a modern human or some variety thereof. The fossil doesn’t have to connect australopithecus to ancient genus homo, it just does.

It is a mystery to me why he would need to have his “researchers” respond to a fossil discovery like this. It is completely unnecessary, when it would not be accepted anyway for all the reasons that Ken Ham gives. The technical aspects of it are completely irrelevent to the discussion for him. The most his “researchers” do is couch Ken Ham’s philosophy in technical language to appear sophisticated, when in reality, it is anything but. It is just Ken Ham making sure the evidence fits his views rather than allowing the evidence to change his views.

2 thoughts on “A RESPONSE TO KEN HAM’S RESPONSE TO THE LEDI JAW

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s