Creationist Wisdom #119: Camels

YOUR Curmudgeon brings you some excerpts from an article at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of creationist wisdom. Their latest masterpiece is titled Camels — Ready to Take the Heat. The bold font was added for emphasis. Here we go:

The camel is a sure crowd-pleaser at the zoo, with its loping gait and comical expressions, but a closer look at this unique animal reveals a surprising design that points directly to an omniscient Creator.

The camel “points directly to” creationism? This is exciting! Let’s read on:

From their nose to their feet, camels are perfectly suited to their desert environments: the harsh, hot winds and sand of the deserts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

They’d better be suited for their environment. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t last long. We shudder to think what would happen to a walrus in a desert habitat. The AIG article continues:

To protect them from sandstorms, camels were given nostrils that they can open and close; they also have bushy eyebrows, fur-lined ears, and double rows of curly eyelashes for the same protective purpose. The tough, leathery skin on their knees pads the joints as they kneel, and their special foot pads spread as they walk, to keep them from sinking into the sand.

Yes, yes — the camel has what it takes. We’ll skip some paragraphs of additional description, and concede that camels are equipped to survive in their environment. That’s true for every species, from polar bears to pelicans. Well, wait a minute — what about more than 90% of all species that weren’t so well equipped — the ones that went extinct? No problem — presumably that’s the fault of Adam & Eve.

We know what you’re wondering — how does this prove creationism? Be patient. AIG won’t let us down.

But how did the camel come to be suited for such a harsh, hot, sandy environment? A common misconception among evolutionists is that creationists believe God created each animal exactly as we see it today. But if this were true, many of the camel’s design features would have been at best superfluous in the “very good” world of the Garden of Eden.

We hadn’t considered that, but AIG is absolutely right! The camel would have been ridiculous in Eden. Let’s keep going:

In Genesis 1:24, God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds” (NIV). The original camel “kind” would have contained in its genetic code the information to produce “modern” camels, as well as their relatives, such as the llama. God, in His omniscience, may have placed in His original perfect creation everything it would need to survive in a world cursed by sin.

Camel kind? In scientific terminology that would probably be the biological family known as Camelidae, which includes dromedaries, Bactrian Camels, llamas, and alpacas. According to AIG, the original camel kind in Eden must have been jam-packed with nifty genetic code that wouldn’t be needed until after the Fall. Very convenient.

Speaking of the llama, it’s interesting that AIG acknowledges its relationship to the camel. But the llama isn’t found in the Old World, nor is the camel found in the New — at least not in the last 6,000 years. How did Noah manage that?

The AIG article doesn’t discuss such things. Instead, at this point it draws to a close with one final paragraph:

The camel’s extraordinary tale of survival in one of the harshest climates is a beautiful testimony to the foreknowledge and amazing creativity of an infinite God who cares deeply about His creation.

So there you are. You wanted proof of creationism? Now you’ve got it — just look at a camel. That’s all you need to know.

Of course, the same argument could be used for any animal — at least those now surviving — so perhaps we can expect a whole series of similar articles. What’s next, the skunk?

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

21 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #119: Camels

  1. So… the camel was designed by an omniscient omnipotent omnipresent Creator, they say. Blasphemers! I mean, everybody knows the camel was designed by a committee!

  2. Frankly, I find all this talk about camel’s being designed by a god, and/or by a committee personally offensive.

    I’ll thank you to show us more respect.

  3. Dromedary Hump says: “I’ll thank you to show us more respect.”

    You’ve been waiting a long time for the opportunity to tell us that, haven’t you?

  4. The Curmudgeon asks

    The camel “points directly to” creationism?

    Well, if you consider the camel toe as the portal to paradise and creativity….

  5. Great Claw says: “Well, if you consider the camel toe as the portal to paradise …”

    In some camel-oriented cultures, it’s not the toe. But let’s not go there.

  6. I love reading theologians who can’t resist an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot.

    God could have only given the camels post-Fall genetic material if He knew that the Fall would happen. So He really wasn’t giving Adam and Eve a choice, when He forbade them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge — He already knew that they would disobey, and He already knew that all of Creation would Fall as a result.

    This is not the first time that theologians have set up the free will/determinism problem in such a way as to make it unsolvable. And if they were willing to just be flat-out mystics, I wouldn’t care half so much. What irks me is the gesture of “I’m going to be completely rational — until I decide not to be, and you can’t hold me accountable for when I decide that’s going to be.” Creationism is a particularly egregious example of that gesture.

  7. At least this sort of claptrap is testable. You simply compare codes within a “kind” – i.e. between dromedary and bactrian, or camel and alpaca. Each should have ALL the code of the other, with different parts turned off. If they don’t, AIG’s form of creationism must be wrong.

    I know which outcome I’d bet on.

  8. The Curmudgeon said: “You’ve been waiting a long time for the opportunity to tell us that, haven’t you?”

    yes. 😉

  9. I just love that AiG is ultra, super, absolutely against evolution. However, they will gladly roll out SUPER EVOLUTION, to help with the variety problem with their flood hypothesis. Not that it helps in this case. A pair of camel “kind” now not only has to populate at least three different species, but has to do it at several geographically separated locations. Creationists just can’t get very far without resorting to the ol’ Magic Wand, eh?

  10. Albanaeon says: “Creationists just can’t get very far without resorting to the ol’ Magic Wand, eh?”

    They’re just following the evidence.

  11. The free will/determinism problem isn’t unsolvable. Just because we might happen to know that a certain mindset is going to get someone (teenagers for instance) in trouble, doesn’t mean that we can stop them. They have freewill.
    I believe God knows what wilI be done, but I don’t believe the thing God really wants is always done. Why would Jesus have told us to pray for God’s will to be done if it always was?
    Camels make for great humor, either way though.

  12. longshadow

    What’s next, the skunk?

    No, it will be God’s greatest creation — the dung beetle! What greater celebration of Deity’s creativity can there be than a bug scuttling backwards rolling a ball of sh*t with its hind legs?

  13. “What greater celebration of Deity’s creativity can there be than a bug scuttling backwards rolling a ball of sh*t with its hind legs?”

    Ah, you’ve met my ex-wife.

  14. longshadow


  15. Gabriel Hanna

    I’ve got to second “themysteryof”; just because you know what will happen in the future doesn’t mean you don’t have free will.

    I know for a fact that I will never play basketball in the NBA, but that doesn’t that the Universe was set up to prevent me from ever doing so.

  16. @Gabriel Hanna, “…just because you know what will happen in the future doesn’t mean you don’t have free will.”

    Uh, your NBA example doesn’t explain this. I know I won’t do a lot of things because life is too short and there are some things just physically impossible. It seems to me that it takes some real contortions to say that God knows everything that will happen and yet we somehow have “free will” to do something different.

  17. Gabriel Hanna, I must agree with RogerE. An omniscient deity knows the future — all of it, every detail. It’s like watching a movie you’ve already seen. Nothing new or unexpected can happen. So when Rick and Elsa face their little crisis at the airport in Casablanca, it’s just not possible that Rick will decide to keep the girl. He doesn’t have free will, even if he may think he does. We know better because we know how the movie ends.

  18. I missed the part with Elsa in Casablanca. However, the scene with Ilsa is just as noteworthy. Of course, if you REALLY like Casablanca, it is worth seeing again. Maybe that’s how God is. Doesn’t get bored with reruns?

  19. retiredsciguy

    Answers in Genesis can turn this into a wonderful series — this week, the camel. Next week, the small-mouthed bass — “so perfectly designed for its watery environment!”

    The week after that, the Bald Eagle — “crafted by God to be the perfect national emblem for this God-fearing nation!”

  20. How much front-loading can a camel’s genome take before it breaks its back?

  21. It’s like a game of chess. The move that one player makes is dependent upon the other, but they each have freewill up to a certain point. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus cried out, “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem,…how often I WOULD HAVE gathered you together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but YOU WOULD NOT. In the verses that follow, he spoke of some things that would happen, as a result of their choice. Freewill is a complex subject, and can’t be covered very well in a few sentences. I don’t believe though, that either God or genetics dictate what our choices will be.