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.