ICR: Eyelashes Are Proof of Creationism

We don’t write much these days about the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. They post a few articles a month at their website, but we ignore most of them because they’re not as amusing as they used to be. Even with Jason Lisle as their director of whatever it is that they call research, they’re boring.

But we found something today. The ICR website has this new item: Lids, Lashes, and Lunar Rovers. Lunar rovers? Be patient, we’ll get to that.

The article is by Frank Sherwin, M.A., described at the end of his article as: “Research Associate, Senior Lecturer, and Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” Here’s his writeup at the Encyclopedia of American Loons. ICR has a bio page on the guy: Frank Sherwin. They say his MA degree is in zoology from the University of Northern Colorado.

We know you’re eager to learn what this creation scientist has to tell us, so let’s dig right into his article. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

Our amazing eyes are kept clean and moist due to the blink reflex stimulated by receptors on our eyes and eyelashes. When the lash is touched or the eyeball begins to dry, receptors fire and we immediately blink, protecting the eye from debris or injury and moisturizing the surface. It is clear from their clever design and cooperative function that God created our eyelids, lashes, and receptors to “stand guard” for our eyes.

Ooooooooooh. Ooooooooooh! This is so exciting! [*Curmudgeon takes a fast bathroom break. Okay, we’re back*] What else does Frank Sherwin, M.A., say?

A recent discovery indicates our lashes must measure at just the right length to work properly. Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology studied 22 mammal lash lengths and reported that, from giraffes to hedgehogs, lash length was (not surprisingly) of “optimum” length — about one-third of the width of the given mammal’s eye. At this length lashes “trap a protective layer of air on top of the eye” that reduces evaporation and debris entrance by 50 percent.

Here’s an article on that study: The downside to long lashes, by Elizabeth Pennisi. We’ll stay with ICR, because we don’t care what those Darwinists say. We want the creationist interpretation:

If lashes were too short, they would be ineffective. But if they’re too long they actually direct air and particles onto the eye causing irritation and drying.

Ooooooooooh. Ooooooooooh! They’re just right! Isn’t that amazing? Let’s read on:

Evolutionist Elizabeth Pennisi of Science magazine suggested that “lashes had evolved to be a particular size relative to the eye.” Declaring eyelash lengths simply “had evolved to be” is hardly a scientific or sufficient explanation for how such optimal function is exhibited in mammals across-the-board.

Yeah — it’s pathetic! We continue:

According to evolution, our ancient ancestors were the early salamander-like tetrapods. Where did their eyelids come from — to which the important lashes would later attach?What about the origin of the eye?

Yeah — those evolutionists don’t know anything! Here’s more:

The lack of certainty in the evolutionist response leaves many questions unanswered, while creation scientists trace God’s hand in the well-designed function of lids and lashes in the protection of the eye.

Now that’s more like it! Goddidit. Yes, that’s a satisfying explanation. But wait — you’re wondering about that mention of “Lunar Rovers” in the title of ICR’s article. It’s in the last paragraph, where Sherwin quotes that evolutionist, Elizabeth Pennisi:

Without acknowledging the Creator or His remarkable design, secular scientists are attempting to copy lash design (an example of a “bio-inspired solution”) that “could lead to passive self-cleaning devices for optical sensors and planetary rovers.”

The arrogance! It’s an outrage! But at least we have ICR to set the record straight. What would we do without them?

Copyright © 2015. 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

23 responses to “ICR: Eyelashes Are Proof of Creationism

  1. Christine Janis

    How do fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds manage without eyelashes?

  2. Mary L. Mand

    (Hey, Christine!) I didn’t know eyelashes attached. I thought they were hairs and grew from follicles.

  3. So, we see that designers are copying natural lashes.
    This is supposed to tell us how productive design is?
    When what it does is give an example of how design can learn from nature.

    I’m not saying that this proves anything, or even suggests anything about the limits of unaided design. Although I wouldn’t object to anyone saying “evolution is smarter than you are”.

    But it for sure is not an example of how nature is design.

  4. I get it. The Creation Research formula. Find something cool that some actual scientist writes about, and then say it is so well designed that obviously God did it.

    Next, find something cool that some actual scientist writes about…

  5. Mike Elzinga

    If our noses were turned upside down, they would fill up with water when it rained; so they have been designed to shed water like a roof.

    And our hands have been designed to hold bananas perfectly.

  6. aturingtest

    If the physical constants of the universe weren’t exactly as they are, the universe wouldn’t support the life it was “designed” for; if the earth weren’t at just the right distance from the sun, neither too close nor too far away, earth wouldn’t support the life it was “designed” to; now, if eyelashes weren’t just the right length, neither too long or too short, they wouldn’t work as well at the job they were “designed” for. The “design theory” works so well on so many levels- in fact, explains everything so well- that it’s almost as if it’s not a theory at all, since it ends up not really explaining anything about whatever it’s specifically addressing. It’s the watchmaker gone global, who is responsible for everything from the watch to the desert it’s found in.

  7. aturingtest

    Mike Elzinga:

    If our noses were turned upside down, they would fill up with water when it rained; so they have been designed to shed water like a roof.

    I remember reading somewhere (Erik Larson’s Isaac’s Storm, I think) that, as Hurricane Camille moved northward over land in 1969, some birds were reported to have drowned in the heavy rains, because their nostrils are on top. I guess the Creator/Designer was too busy measuring for the perfect eyelash length to worry over a little detail like that.

  8. Eyelashes are the best evidence against intelligent design. I can’t count how many times a detached eyelash has gotten into my eye and started rubbing my eyeball – I immediately start leaping around with pain. I call it the “eyelash dance”. It’s analogous to the “kidney stone dance” that doctors and nurses see in hospitals – patients walk briskly around, back and forth, holding their hands over their lower back. I curse the invisible sky daddy who thought that eyelashes were a good idea.

  9. Re: Christine Janis’ comment.

    Animals with eyelashes? Proof of a creator!

    Animals without eyelashes? You guessed it: proof of a creator!

    Isn’t it amazing how some animals’ eyes are kept clean and moist without eyelashes? Golly!

  10. But the designer’s work was not quite good enough as is evidenced by womens’ liberal use of mascara to alter the eyelashe’s appearance.

  11. Alas, I need to evolve some eyelashes!

  12. Don’t forget the design of ants to be both tasty and nutritious to anteaters. If they were tasty but not nutritious, or not tasty but nutritious, the world would not be well-designed for anteaters.

  13. Shouldn’t an intelligently designed blind person be born without eyelashes? (Never mind why an intelligently designed person would be born blind, to begin with.)

  14. aturingtest

    Everything is evidence for Intelligent Design/Creation when you’re reasoning top down from that conclusion to the evidence instead of upward from the evidence to a conclusion.

  15. Charles Deetz ;)

    Aren’t eyelashes just a patch job to help protect the otherwise very vulnerable eye? Good job, creator, figuring out a way to protect your eye invention (on some species) before you had to go-live on day four.

  16. Isn’t it quaint how creationists try to fake doing all of that scientistical stuff. Humans completely lack a functioning nictitating membrane for eye protection that numerous other animals have. Hence, the ICR god must like those sharks, birds and reptiles a lot more than those icky humans (especially the ICR variety).

  17. As I age, my lashes grow thinner and my vision grows worse. I had not realized the connection. Will false eyelashes improve my eyesight, or is this a Design Flaw that cannot be overcome?

  18. OT note to Megalonyx: You explained your anti-Disney avatar in a previous post. Did you hear they have given you another reason to dislike them? Disney raised the one-day ticket price to DisneyWorld to $105. And that’s on top of the $17 for the privilege of being able to use their parking lot. The other main Orlando-area theme parks quickly followed suit.

  19. Many thanks, Pope Retiredsciguy!

  20. According to evolution, our ancient ancestors were the early salamander-like tetrapods. Where did their eyelids come from — to which the important lashes would later attach? … What about the origin of the eye?

    Groan. And double groan. Creationists go on and on about the origin of the eye and how it has to be “just right” to function at all despite the fact that there are living examples of perfectly functional eyes, and eyelike sense organs, simpler than our own, from the simple cups of photosensitive cells pit vipers have (in addition to “regular” eyes) to detect the infrared radiation of prey animals’ body heat on up.

    As for the eyelid and eyelashes, the lid is basically just a flap of skin, and could do without eyelashes at all; many animals, such as lizards, have lashless lids. The lashes themselves are simply repurposed body hair, and their length has clearly been established by natural selection: those animals which had lashes of the “wrong” lengths would be disadvantaged and less effective at reproducing themselves. For that matter, plenty of animals don’t even have eyelids: insects, for example. And they manage perfectly well.

  21. I’d like to see Sherwin explain, from his “clever design and cooperative function that God created” point of view: head hair and face hair or lack thereof, body hair or lack thereof, toe hair or lack thereof, finger hair or lack thereof, kinky hair, curly hair, wavy hair, straight hair, ingrown hairs, different colors of hair (often on the same person), different colors of hair as a person ages, thick hair, thin hair, eye brows, unibrows, hairs decreasing on parts of a person while increasing on other parts as a person ages, variable growth rates and length of hairs depending on their location on a person (or from person to person), and WHY, if we’re so “cleverly designed” (and ‘specially created in the image of God’), we humans ever want or need to cut, trim, curl, straighten, style, comb, brush, wash, implant, shave, pluck, dye, or otherwise modify any of our hairs in any way.

    Does “God” get haircuts and perms?

    And how about toenails and fingernails? Are they “cleverly designed” by “God” to always be the right length, etc.?

  22. As I sit here trying to figure out if it’s allergies, pinkeye, or a stray eyelash that’s causing my left eye to itch like fire, I’m really, really trying to find that column funny. Or, rather, I would be, if the world were more than a blurry smear.

  23. And what about the Vulcan inner eyelid that protects them from blindness when they look into a Medusa box? Riddle me that one!