AIG: The Success of Creation Science

Before the Discovery Institute decided to rely solely on their intuition about supernatural causes, they tried to present positive arguments for their “theory” of intelligent design. One of their themes (now apparently abandoned) was that if we choose to copy some biological feature we find in another species, then we’re recognizing and using intelligent design.

Here’s an example: Humans Copy Nature, Therefore Intelligent Design! It’s so pathetic that we included it in our list of Common Creationist Claims Confuted. If you go there, the section is titled “Copying Nature Requires Intelligence.”

That’s why we were amused to see the latest post at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia. Ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists are now lurching and groping in the same direction the Discoveroids have abandoned. Take a look at A Sailor’s Best Friend.

It was written by Dr. Don DeYoung. This is his biography page at AIG, which says he chairs the Science and Mathematics Department at Grace College and Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. In other words, he’s a bible college creation scientist. Here are some excerpts from his new post, with bold font added by us:

Paul Sperry (1894–1982) was an avid New England sailor and inventor. But he kept running into a problem common to yachtsmen of his day: the boat deck became slippery and dangerous when wet. After nearly drowning in a boating accident, Paul set out to solve the problem by applying various coatings to his boat deck and shoes. However, his success was limited and temporary.

Jeepers! What did he do? We’re told:

One wintry day in 1935 Paul was walking his cocker spaniel, Prince, along an icy path. He found walking difficult, but Prince moved with ease across the ice and remained sure-footed. Arriving back home Paul examined the dog’s feet. On each paw he noticed separate pads of skin, each covered with fingerprint-like grooves.

Aha! What happened next? Let’s read on:

As an experiment Paul cut grooves in a sheet of rubber and attached it to his shoe. The angled slits resembled what is called a herringbone pattern. When he stepped outside on the ice, the greater shoe traction was obvious.

That’s exciting! The bible college physicist continues:

Paul Sperry went on to form a company that designed non-skid shoes called Sperry Top-Siders. The US Navy caught wind of the idea of a safety tread on shoes, and Top-Siders quickly became standard issue. Today, all athletic shoes, as well as vehicle tires, benefit from the safety design of a grooved surface.

Okay, but so what? Where’s the creationism? Be patient; here it comes:

“Authentic Original Sperry” shoes are still worn worldwide by sailors and as casual street shoes. Where did this safety idea originate? On a dog’s paw! God planned all parts of nature with care, and many of these details have practical value as we explore creation.

For some reason, that divine design isn’t built into our feet, but that peculiar oversight isn’t discussed. Now we come to the end:

The application of ideas from God’s creation to develop new products and solve problems is popularly called biomimicry or biomimetics. … The endeavor might better be called creation research. It suggests an entirely new approach to science, the searching out of secrets that God put in place for our discovery and benefit.

So there you are, dear reader. Creation science is great stuff! And AIG is leading the way.

Copyright © 2016. 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

7 responses to “AIG: The Success of Creation Science

  1. Orgel’s Second Rule:
    Evolution is cleverer than you are.

    We are not given an example of how intelligent design was able to solve a problem. It doesn’t, to be sure, mean that evolution is cleverer than Sperry. That would take lots of examples. But it certainly does not show how Sperry’s intelligent design was cleverer than evolution.
    It reminds me of the argument that all of the clever scientists have not been able to design a living cell – and therefore, supposedly, we should think that intelligent design should be able to design a living cell.
    Non sequitur

  2. Dave Luckett

    Uh-huh, Ever seen a dog try to corner on a polished floor? Doesn’t do it very well – from which it would follow that a dog’s paws are effective only on specific range of surfaces, and Almighty God didn’t think that they’d need something different as, you know, domestic pets in human houses. Why, one would almost think that environment had something to do with selecting for that.

    Uh… Am I the first to come up with that idea?

  3. uhh we walk different then dogs? Our foot is designed different and do have textures built into them. We can walk barefoot with confidence, but we add shoes for comfort.

  4. Copying nature is not copying creation. There is no logical link. The origin of whatever it is in nature that’s worth copying is not answered by the fact that we copy it.

  5. Actually, he made improvements on the dog’s paw. I can’t be the only one who has watched dogs slip and slide on ice. Ours did.

  6. Dr. DeYoung’s reasoning is of this type: If it exists in nature and humans can copy it, its origin must be supernatural.

    It’s beyond me how anyone, even creationists, can buy such absurd reasoning.

  7. I’m still trying to understand how design is supernatural. ISTM that design is taking account of natural laws, and the supernatural is not limited by natural laws. (Are there supernatural laws which supernatural must take account of in making supernatural designs?)