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.