AIG: Male Nipples Prove Creationism

The evidence just keeps piling up! We found this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the creationist Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. He also brought you the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

AIG’s article is titled Why Do Men Have Nipples?, and it’s written in the form of an answer to a question their creation scientists received, as follows:

My son asked me, “Why do men have nipples?” I did not have a good answer, other than they were made in the image of God. I’ve searched your website because I thought I had read about it before, but cannot find the article. Can you please help me answer this question for my son, who is struggling with the “fiery darts” thrown at him in public school?

We know that this is likely to be a big question for you too, dear reader, so here are some excerpts from AIG’s answer. The bold font was added by us:

Evolutionists often raise this issue as an objection to the concept of a creator God. After all, if there were an all-knowing Creator, why would He design men with a structure for which they have no use? In females, the nipple has an obvious function, that is, to breastfeed a baby. So what’s the purpose for nipples on males?

You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth! Here it comes anyway:

A frequently promoted evolutionary view of male nipples is that they are leftovers from our evolutionary past. They are often considered to be vestigial organs. The vestigial idea suggests they were functional in the past, but as the evolution of man progressed, their function was lost. Upon close examination, this view does not make sense. In fact, this is a very poor evidence for evolution.

If male nipples are, in fact, vestigial, they must have had a more robust function in the past. Does the evolutionist actually suggest that our male evolutionary ancestors breast-fed newborns, and that somehow as evolution progressed, this ability was lost? Alternatively, would the evolutionist argue that our ancestors were all females, that modern males diverged from this all female population, and that in this process they lost the ability to lactate?

We don’t know about you, but our granddaddy weren’t no female! Let’s read on:

The creation model provides a much better explanation for the presence of nipples in males. Male nipples are not a vestige of evolution but are instead a vestige of embryology. They in no way diminish the abilities of the creator God, but are actually another example of His wisdom. Nipples in males are actually an evidence of “design economy.”

Ah — design economy. Of course! We continue:

Very early in their maturation, male and female human embryos are essentially the same. All these embryos have structures that will ultimately form the defining physical characteristics of male and female. [Gooey details omitted.]

We’re not sure we like this “essentially the same” stuff. The Good Book says, in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” What’s happening at AIG? Here’s more:

It should be clarified, however, that embryos do not all “start out female.” The genetic makeup of each individual is in place from the time of fertilization. Thus the “programming” for “male” and “female” is determined from the outset, and the anatomical gender is simply a result of the expression of those genes.

That’s it? That’s AIG’s reason that males have nipples? Moving along:

If nipples and breasts are “useless” to males, they are equally useless to prepubescent girls, and for that matter are “useless” to any woman who is not breastfeeding a child.

Yeah, okay. Another excerpt:

It should be noted that male nipples are not useless, as has been suggested. They are very sensitive and are a source of sexual stimulation.

Egad! We’re shocked to see such scandalous material at the AIG website! Here’s the article’s conclusion:

Far from being a problem for creationists, the presence of nipples in males is actually another example of the wisdom and creativity of the God we serve. It is, in fact, the evolutionists who have a problem with this issue, as they can provide no reason for the existence and persistence of male nipples in an evolutionary scenario.

So there you are. Creationists don’t have any problem with male nipples. It’s the evolutionists who have the problem. Nya, nya, nyaaaaaaa!

Copyright © 2011. 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

3 responses to “AIG: Male Nipples Prove Creationism

  1. One of my favorite questions for creationists is:
    “What sort of thing is not intelligently designed?”
    Obviously, everything real is a creature of God, so the scope would include things which don’t exist. We’d have to see examples of things which we know were not or could not be intelligently designed.
    But what sort of thing is impossible for an intelligent designer? I know that shmoos were intelligently designed (by Al Capp).

  2. It would be a better article if Ham could cite an evolutionist that defines male nipples as vestigial. Unfortunately for Ham, evolution does not promote male nipples as vestigial, and scientists would argue that they are a likely consequence of evolution (Ham even hints at this in his explanation of the developing embryo).

    On the other hand, a creator would have no reason to add a feature to the male that was not needed. Being the quote miner that he is, Ham quotes only Genesis 1, in which god makes men and women (plural) in his image at the same time after creating all the other animals.

    Ham does not mention Genesis 2, the other creation story, where God creates Adam and Eve. In this story, there is no mention of them being created in his image, and he creates them separately – he creates Adam first, before any other animals or birds. Seeing that Adam is alone in an empty world, he creates all the other animals with the intent of making him a helper to tend the garden of eden. Adam isn’t satisfied with any of them, so God creates Eve for him (he clones her from a rib of Adam). In Genesis 2, God apparently did not intend to create Eve when he initially made Adam, so the question for Ham is – did Adam have nipples, and if so, why?

  3. Wikipedia has a quote that kinda/sorta not really describes male nipples as vestigial:
    “In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipple

    The claim of the ‘female template’- embryos start out female- is there also. I am not sure what research Ham did, but it may well have been nothing by Wikipedia.