Ken Ham: The Gecko Is Proof of Creationism

This is guaranteed to shake you out of your sinful evolutionist fantasies, dear reader. It’s titled Gecko Inspires New Robot Grippers for Use in Space, written by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

It’s always exciting to see researchers and scientists looking to God’s creation for innovative designs to solve problems. A recent news article [link omitted] highlighted yet another example of biomimicry (copying God’s design): robot grippers for use in outer space, inspired by the design of gecko feet.

[*Begin Drool Mode*] Ooooooooooooh! [*End Drool Mode*] They’re copying God’s design! Hambo says:

These new grippers could grab and hold floating objects in microgravity, which is not an easy thing to do since many chemical adhesives don’t work in the various temperatures in space, and suction doesn’t work in a vacuum. Researchers hope these new grippers will eventually help robots move space junk to safer, higher orbits or help robots maneuver outside spacecraft. The grippers are inspired by geckos’ amazing gripping ability, and can move objects many times their size in the conditions of space.

Sounds good, but where’s the creationism? Hambo tells us:

Professor Stuart Burgess, a professor of engineering design at the University of Bristol (UK) and a speaker for Answers in Genesis — UK [Hee hee!], says of this exciting innovation,

[Hambo quotes the creationist engineer:] Gecko feet are excellent at gripping due to tiny hairs that create molecular forces that grip onto surfaces. Space engineers are copying the design of gecko feet in order to create better grippers for astronauts to use in space. This is yet another example of engineers copying design in creation because they are the best designs. The superiority of design in nature provides great support for creation.

Yes, it’s “great support for creation.” Hambo declares:

Professor Burgess is right. The design we see in nature (even though we acknowledge a “groaning creation” that’s been affected by sin, as taught in [scripture references]) is so much better than anything we humans can think up.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The design we see in nature is so much better than the wheel, the printing press, the steam engine, the telephone, jet aircraft, the Hubble space telescope, the internet, etc. Let’s read on:

Doesn’t it make sense that a Designer was behind everything we see and not naturalistic processes blindly acting over millions of years?

No doubt about it. And now we come to the end:

The remarkable — and far superior — design in nature bears witness to the One who created it all, our Lord Jesus Christ.

So there you are, dear reader. Creationism has never contributed anything to science — and never will — but it’s fun to watch them claiming credit for everything.

Copyright © 2017. 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

13 responses to “Ken Ham: The Gecko Is Proof of Creationism

  1. Surely the real inspiration for Hambo’s ‘ministry’ is Gordon Gekko…

  2. If creationist design is so superior one wonders why no architect, city planner, civil engineer, or rational person has ever seriously considered copying human design by putting recreational areas in the same place as waste disposal.

  3. As a biologist, I’ve always been impressed with the adaptations produced by natural selection — gecko feet included — with no help from any sky fairy.

  4. Creationists insist upon pointing out that there are features of living things that are unlike design.
    Geckos have features which no engineers have have designed, we are told. And then that is taken to be a reason to think that they must be designed!?

  5. Eric Lipps

    Doesn’t it make sense that a Designer was behind everything we see and not naturalistic processes blindly acting over millions of years?

    Whenever I see or hear the phrase “doesn’t it make sense,” I know the writer or speaker is trying to appeal to “common sense,” not reason.

    Suppose one were to have said, in Copernicus’ time, “Doesn’t it make sense that the earth stands still and the universe revolves around it? After all, we don’t see or feel the earth turning, but anyone can watch the heavenly bodies move.” Yes, it would have been “common sense”–but it would have been wrong. The sad fact is that when a belief is common, it generally turns out to make no sense when examined carefully, while if it does make sense, it’s commonly rejected.

  6. Ross Cameron

    While we enjoy rebutting wild creo claims, is there any evidence to suggest they read these replies, let alone consider them? Or are we just ego-tripping?

  7. @Ross Cameron: To answer your question, it seems as though Ken Ham drops by this blog on a regular basis, sometimes leaving comments under various names or just plain “anonymous”. Haven’t seen him lately, but then again, I haven’t been as regular here as I have been in the past. I’m sure the Curmudgeon can answer better than any of us.

    As far as any creo “considering” our replies, well, we’re talking science, which is based on evidence and reason; their minds are controlled by religious belief based on scripture. Reason does not easily penetrate such a mind.

    In Hambo’s case, he’s got way too much money invested in his Creation Museum and Ark Encounter to EVER say or do anything that would even hint at accepting evolution, billions of years of Earth history, etc.

  8. @Megalonyx: Ham :: Gordon Gekko. Brilliant!!

  9. @retiredsciguy
    religious belief based on scripture
    But what religious belief based on scripture is there that:
    1) there was micro-evolution of modern species from a kinds after the Flood
    2) there is a barrier to the amount of change of micro-evolution preventing crossing kinds
    3) that there is a kind of humans which does not contain any other species of animal

  10. Derek Freyberg

    What would be amazing, but is unlikely to happen, would be the Hamster saying that anything isn’t a proof of creation.
    What is amazing is that scientists have managed to scale up a phenomenon that is effective at weights of grams or less to work at weights of tens of kilograms. Most natural phenomena don’t scale well – as someone said “drop a mouse down a well, it runs away; drop a man down a well, he goes to hospital; drop a horse down a well, it splashes”. So to figure out a way to do this is quite something, and I notice that it’s done not by enlarging or multiplying the number of gecko setae on the contact surface, but by using adhesives and load-distributing with shape-memory alloy tendons.

    @Ross Cameron:
    It is fun, surely that’s enough: some like crosswords, others like debunking creo-crap. If convincing the Hamster were the test of post-worthiness, I think our esteemed host would have given up by now. But we do see the odd nay-sayer.

  11. Creation is a disproof of design.
    Design is a disproof of creation.
    To make a design is to take account of the possibilities of the materials being used. Creation ex nihilo does not have any materials being used. Creation is not from anything, and therefore does not involve design.
    Design is what is resorted to by finite agents when they are confronted with a situation that is not to their liking, and have to cope with the laws of the nature of the material.

  12. @TomS — Yeah, you’re right. I should have said “loosely based on scripture, if on anything at all.”

  13. techreseller

    Tom B, I accept the fact of evolution as much as any thinking person. We do put recreational areas in FORMER places of waste disposal. Va Beach has Mt Trashmore, a park built on a former landfill. Fairfax County VA has a park also built on a former landfill. Trees, meadows, athletic fields etc. Just saying.