I have to get this out of my system. I NEED TO RANT. Ken Ham really has no grasp on science or critical thinking, and I cannot believe that he studied science in university (at least, I think he did?). Here's an example of one of his flawed thoughts that really pissed me off:
In the story he told in which he talked about his college professor explaining evolution to his class through the example of eyeless fish living in a cave—that IS totally an example of evolution. Ken Ham was like, "How is that evolution since they are losing a feature that they once had and that was beneficial to them?! Herp derp, professor, riddle me this!!1!!1"
Well, if they live in a cave, they don't necessarily need the sense of sight. Instead, they can focus their metabolic energy on other senses and other important functions in their body. The eyeless fish have higher fitness because they aren't wasting their energy on sight. You can see the same sort of example with land-dwelling cave or underground animals such as naked mole rats, moles, eyeless salamanders, etc. It's the best adaptation suited for these animals who dwell in dimly-lit or completely dark environments.
Okay, sorry for the ramble haha. I just wanted to point out that this guy has no idea what the fuck he is talking about.