Answers in Genesis: Behold the Bombardier Beetle

This is about a very impressive article from the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia. It’s titled Bombardier Beetle–The Arsenal Insect, and it was written by Karin Viet.

The last time we wrote about her brilliant creation research was Answers in Genesis: Behold the Giraffe. If that one didn’t convince you to be a creationist, this certainly will. We’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis. It begins dramatically:

The sinister toad closes in on the beetle. Instead of a futile attempt to scurry away, the beetle waits, as though surrendering. Just before the toad’s tongue flicks out to snag its victim, the beetle fires its cannon. Pop! Pop! Pop! Out shoots burning gas. The emissions fire in pulsation, 500 times per second, but the defensive attack is complete before one second passes. Rather than getting a tasty snack, the defeated toad hops away with a mouthful of noxious gasses. The bombardier beetle’s tail end is equipped with twin “spray nozzles” (or gland openings) to shoot its gaseous ammunition.

The bombardier beetle is an old favorite of creationists. It’s even in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims — see The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution. It must have been designed.

Karin pays no attention to sources like that because she knows The Truth. She devotes several paragraphs describing the wonders of the beetle. We’ll skip most of it until we come to this:

Creationists have frequently pointed to the bombardier beetle as an example of divine design. While God originally proclaimed his creation “very good” [scripture reference], Adam’s sin brought death into the world, so God equipped the bombardier beetle with an intricate defense structure.

Ah, so that’s how it happened! Yes, it makes perfect sense. Then Karin says:

Evolutionists have counterattacked with imaginative ideas of how such an elaborate defense mechanism could have evolved. Evolution supposedly progresses from primitive life forms to higher life forms. Because evolutionists postulate that the changes from “goo-to-you” happen through slight, successive modifications over millions of years, the “theory” of evolution cannot be tested.

Jeepers — evolution can’t be tested! After that stunning fact, she tells us:

Any design can be explained away by picking it apart into supposed steps. The supposed steps cannot be proven or disproven because no one can go back in time and record the alleged evolution of one animal kind to another.

Our teachers lied to us! Karin continues:

Evolutionists and creationists both have the same evidence, but they interpret that evidence through their different worldviews. Evolutionists base their beliefs on human reasoning that the design in this world could have happened through small, upward modifications over billions of years.

Human reasoning? The fools! Let’s read on:

Biblical creationists base their beliefs on God’s revelation, the Bible, which says he created the heavens and the earth with creatures fully formed and functioning according to their kinds. Both evolution and creation require belief in the unseen. Yet in cases like the bombardier beetle, perhaps more faith is needed to believe this complex creature evolved.

Yes — evolution requires more faith than creationism, so it must be rejected! Another excerpt:

Evolution is a convenient smokescreen for people to live as if the Creator, Law-Giver, and Judge did not exist. If God created us, we are obligated to live according to his standards for his glory. Yet we have all fallen short of God’s glory, rebelling against Him to go our own way in unbelief and disobedience [scripture reference].

You must repent, dear reader. Abandon your sinful ways!

The rest is bible stuff, so we’ll quit here. All in all, that was a most impressive post from AIG. Wouldn’t you agree?

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

26 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Behold the Bombardier Beetle

  1. Michael Fugate

    When Adam and Eve discovered they were naked what was really meant is they realized they had no predator defenses. The bombardier beetle realized this too, but rather than clothes – clothes? – opted for a potent chemical defense. Doesn’t the beetle seem smarter than humans? And if so, what does this say about the gods if we are made in their image?

  2. Let’s assume that Adam’s nibbling at the apple annoyed YHVH so much that he decided that everything from now on must, eventually, die (in Adam’s case, after more than 900 years – I should be so lucky). So when the primordial carnivorous toad approaches the originally defenceless beetle, why should JAVH rescind his decree of death and suddenly give the beetle a complicated defence mechanism?

  3. It would, I fear, be presumptuous to beseech the Mighty Hand of Correction to concern itself with such a triviality as my superfluous space before a comma.

    [*Voice from above*] I stretched forth my mighty hand, and behold! It is done!

  4. [Edited out]. I will attempt this in church on Sunday. Maybe I will come to believe.

  5. Evolutionists and creationists both have the same evidence, but they interpret that evidence through their different worldviews. Evolutionists base their beliefs on human reasoning that the design in this world could have happened through small, upward modifications over billions of years.

    Well, yes . . . along with the evidence that those billions of years actually happened, which young-earthers insist is untrue because Genesis lays out proof—proof, they tell us!—that life, the universe and everything (sorry, Douglas Adams, I couldn’t resist) all came into existence in six 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago and all those pesky details like radioactive decay rates and distant starlight can be waved away or given cuckoo explanations even some creationists can’t swallow.

  6. Unfortunately Karin’s god forgot to equip the Mokohinau stag beetle from New Zealand with a defensive mechanism against invading rats. I’m more than curious how she – and other creacrappers – interpret this evidence on her – their – worldview. Unfortunately I have been waiting for several years since the first time I asked.
    (To be perfectly honest my question is usually about a YouTube video about an antelope eaten alive by snacking lions, but our dear SC wants this to be a family friendly blog and I can’t stomach that video myself).

  7. Mark Germano

    “Rather than getting a tasty snack, the defeated toad hops away with a mouthful of noxious gasses.”

    God hates toads!

  8. AiG: “Adam’s sin brought death into the world, so God equipped the bombardier beetle with an intricate defense structure.”

    Is AiG arguing that God created beetles after the fall, in an event not recorded in Genesis? Or that he reengineered them after the fall? Or that he designed them with the assumption that the fall would happen? Any of these options is a theological pitfall.

  9. There are Christian theologians who tell us that the Fall (and its consequences) were determined from the beginning.
    As far as the option of creations not mentioned in the Bible: The Bible does not mention the creation of the majority of life (microbes), the majority of matter (hydrogen and helium, let alone dark matter and dark energy), etc.

  10. Michael Fugate notes

    When Adam and Eve discovered they were naked what was really meant is they realized they had no predator defenses. The bombardier beetle realized this too, but rather than clothes – clothes? – opted for a potent chemical defense

    Humans also have a potent chemical defense–as anyone who has been trapped in the window seat of a transatlantic flight by two obese and excessively-flatulent fellow passengers can readily attest.

  11. The sky fairy may have loved bombardier beetles inordinately, but apparently not the other beetles that, hundreds of times per day, become yummy toad food (tofu).

  12. Dave Luckett

    Late to the party, having just got off a flight from Finland to Australia (Transatlantic, Hah! a mere hop!), but even I know when Scripture is being augmented, something that’s supposed to be a no-no.

    Adam’s sin may have brought death into the world, but the Bible says nothing whatsoever about predation, until God authorises Noah to eat all meats at Genesis 9:3, after the Flood – a permission later restricted in the Mosaic Law, then expanded again in the New Testament, for some reason. But the point is, it’s one thing to say that everything that lives, must die. It’s quite another, and an extension of Scripture, to say that most living things are to be killed and eaten, but that some of them get special protection.

    But as always with this crowd, the Bible says what they want it to say.

  13. Dave Luckett raises the relative differences in flight times:

    Transatlantic, Hah! a mere hop!

    But Hambo and his crowd assure us that from the mountains of Ararat to the outback of Australia was a mere hop for the marsupials disembarking from Noah’s Ark….

  14. Ol’Hambo and his crowd forget that the lovely sloths from Suriname and surrounding countries aren’t even capable of hopping ….

  15. They miss a really good ironic story about Bomby. It seems that Darwin was out collecting beetles, and had two in hand. He saw a third and quickly popped one of the ones in hand into his mouth(!) for safekeeping. Too bad for Charles that the one in his mouth was a bombardier…

  16. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.” Gospel of John 12:24

    “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Genesis 3:21

  17. The heavenly fur coats were a vast improvement on the raiments depicted in Genesis 3:7

    And the eyes of them both [Adam & Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

  18. What material were needles made out of before the Bronze Age? ISTM that Stone Age needles were made out of bone, teeth, horn or other animal matter – I don’t think that wood would be suitable.

    About aprons – didn’t Adam and Eve need aprons and cooking mittens when cooking before the Fall – or is spilling and splattering and heat when cooking another consequence of the Fall?

    When Adam was naming the animals, what did he call anteaters?

  19. Michael Fugate

    If the designer made clothes for Adam and Eve, then why couldn’t or wouldn’t it redesign every other organism to “fit” a post-Fall earth?

  20. TomS asks: “When Adam was naming the animals, what did he call anteaters?”

    Good question.

  21. @TomS “didn’t Adam and Eve need aprons and cooking mittens”
    I don’t think A&E cooked before the Fall. They were told to eat fruit and, presumably, nuts

    Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it

    Some fruits can indeed be made more palatable by cooking, but in their sinless state A&E could have got by without such luxury.
    If we conflate the Elohim story, Gen 1, with the JHWH story, they could also have eaten cereals and pulses, for example, which do greatly benefit from cooking.
    Cooking, however, requires fire, which is a form of technology, which requires knowledge, which A&E couldn’t have without eating of the forbidden tree of knowledge. No cooking in Eden.

  22. @TomS “When Adam was naming the animals, what did he call anteaters?”
    For a definitive answer, I can only suggest that we consult the world’s greatest ever scientist and theologian. My naive assumption is that there were no such creatures among those offered to Adam for naming and as potential helps meet for him. but that they came into being from some previously existing kind during the burst of superfast evolution following the release of the saved kinds from the Ark.

  23. Michael Fugate

    Maybe they were like really big hummingbirds eating nectar from really big flowers? Sugarsuckers?

  24. Mark Germano

    What we now call the anteater was, pre-fall, an animal that enjoyed making new insect friends. So, Adam named it the ant-meeter.

  25. Dave Luckett: “Adam’s sin may have brought death into the world, but the Bible says nothing whatsoever about predation, until God authorises Noah to eat all meats at Genesis 9:3…”

    Well, we already have humans shepherding animals (certainly for food) and killing them as sacrifices in the Cain and Abel story. There is no consistent view of primordial times in Genesis, because most of the material is simply folktales crammed into a new context. The Christian idea of the Fall and Original Sin certainly aren’t assumed by the text, and many Second Temple Jews believed that evil was introduced by angels shortly before the flood.

  26. Dave Luckett

    Yes, of course it all makes perfect sense if approached as folktale (traditional story), myth (story attributing supernatural cause to natural events or human custom), legend (story about the doings of heroes or gods), parable (story in which metaphor provides an exemplar for human conduct), or fable (story in which fabulous events provide commentary on principle).

    In fact many of the Genesis stories have truths embedded in them, if approached that way. We are all related by ancestry, and we are all one species. The first agrarian revolution entailed the first concept of labour, and it occurred, most likely, around the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. The human combination of bipedal walking and large-headed infants makes human childbirth both painful and perilous. To approach the stories in that light might be beneficial, or at least not harmful. But to approach them as literal history, when there is absolutely no warrant whatsoever for doing so to be found in the text itself – why, that’s utterly crazy. Bonkers. Doolally. Nucking futz.