AIG Says: Behold the Cat

Your Curmudgeon doesn’t like cats, but we’re not suprised at the opposite attitude at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

When we first decided to blog about this, we looked for an appropriate image to use — one of Ernst Stavro Blofeld stroking his cat, or Dr. Evil doing the same thing, or Vito Corleone. But we couldn’t find anything that didn’t have copyright restrictions, so you’ll have to use your imagination.

The title of AIG’s post is How Domestic Cats Came to Rule the World (at Least the Part I Live in). It was written by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, a creationist gynecologist. This is AIG’s bio page for her. She retired from gynecology in 1995 to devote her time to homeschooling her three children — and of course she writes for AIG. Here are some excerpts from her post, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

October 29 was National Cat Day. International Cat Day is August 8, a day to celebrate the joys of owning — or being owned by — a cat. World Cat Day is February 17 throughout Europe and celebrated on March 1 in Russia. Black Cat Appreciation Day is August 17 and Black Cat Awareness month is October. And for completeness sake, National Feral Cat day falls on October 16.

YUK! Then she says:

Cats — which inhabit almost every corner of my home — live on every continent except Antarctica. But it was not always so. When representatives of all air-breathing land animals boarded the Ark around 4,350 years ago, Noah’s historic collection needed only one pair of felines. They would not have been anything like modern domestic cats. That breeding pair contained the genetic information to produce the great variety of felines the world has seen since the Flood. That includes roaring lions and tigers and cheetahs (oh my!), the yowling feral cats in your neighborhood, and the indoor cats meowing on my quilts.

Isn’t this great? After that she tells us:

Animals reproduce and vary only within their created kinds, as described in the Bible and observed in biology. All the cat varieties we see today — big and small, cuddly and fierce — are descended and diversified from the cats on the Ark with Noah.

Only a hell-bound Darwinist would deny it. She continues:

After disembarking from the Ark in the mountains of Ararat, cats did their part to repopulate the earth. Cats, like all kinds of animals, were — according to God’s Word — originally created to be vegetarians. Carnivory began after Adam’s sin brought the curse of death and suffering into the good world God had created.

Yes, cats originally used their sharp teeth only for eating lettuce. Skipping some uninteresting material about the diet of today’s cats, we’re told:

Well equipped for survival, cats have reproduced and varied to produce dozens of species in a wide variety of sizes and temperaments. Darwinian evolution is not needed to understand the many varieties of cats in the world, because the genetic information to produce them has simply been reshuffled and selected from the information available in the post-Flood world’s single breeding pair of cats.

Right, no evolution required. Skipping some material about the domestication of cats, this is our last excerpt from near the end:

The colorful history of the domestic cat, filled in by the latest paleogenetic study, illustrates many fun facts for cat lovers. What it does not reveal, however, is anything about Darwinian evolution. That all cat species and varieties have descended from the representative pair on the Ark is consistent with biblical truth. … No new genetic information had to evolve to produce cats. God created it, in the beginning, and preserved plenty of it in the pair he brought to Noah before the Flood.

So there you are, dear reader. Original sin, Noah’s ark, ridiculously rapid speciation after the Flood — all of it, neatly proved by the cat. That’s all you need to know.

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

37 responses to “AIG Says: Behold the Cat

  1. “Your Curmudgeon doesn’t like cats”
    This picture should do.

    I like some cats like I like some dogs – not all of them.

  2. AIG’s “Behold the____” series is terribly boring. SC you might have to start augmenting blog content with flat earther stuff. The creationists just aren’t producing anymore.

  3. Michael Fugate

    The cut and paste nature of these AiG/DI/ICR essays is pretty dreadful. I am sure they have a checklist.
    Make sure to mention “no new information”.
    Make sure to mention “worldview”.
    Make sure to contrast “materialist” with what ever we call ourselves.

  4. Where are all the Australian native cats?

  5. https://answersingenesis.org/mammals/how-domestic-cats-came-rule-world-least-part-i-live/
    “When representatives of all air-breathing land animals boarded the Ark around 4,350 years ago, Noah’s historic collection needed only one pair of felines. They would not have been anything like modern domestic cats. That breeding pair contained the genetic information to produce the great variety of felines the world has seen since the Flood.”
    “Therefore, we can be confident that cats were originally able to derive all needed nutrition without eating meat. Sometime after the Fall, cats developed the need to eat meat or animal products. Unlike other mammals, cats cannot synthesize taurine, a vital amino acid derivative. Perhaps some pre-Flood plants provided this nutrient, or perhaps a mutation in the cat genome, carried by the pair on the Ark, made taurine synthesis impossible.”
    “Darwinian evolution is not needed to understand the many varieties of cats in the world, because the genetic information to produce them has simply been reshuffled and selected from the information available in the post-Flood world’s single breeding pair of cats.”
    “No new genetic information had to evolve to produce cats. God created it, in the beginning, and preserved plenty of it in the pair he brought to Noah before the Flood.”

    Fundamentalist religion masquerading as ‘science’. Garbage in, garbage out (many Christians believe the Bible but do NOT take Genesis 1 as ‘scientific’).

    I assume much of this kind of garbage is in the new Nathaniel Jeanson book that claims to ‘replace’ Darwin.

  6. Christine Janis

    “Where are all the Australian native cats?”

    They’re called quolls. And they have pouches.

  7. “Darwinian evolution is not needed to understand the many varieties of cats in the world, because the genetic information to produce them has simply been reshuffled and selected from the information available in the post-Flood world’s single breeding pair of cats.”

    What garbage! Makes no genetic sense. Selected? Naturally or in an unrecorded second round of creation? And in just a few years after the flood? Just the glib, irrational, formulaic writing we see from creationists. And, why didn’t that “information” form different cat varieties between creation and the flood, particularly if cats turned into carnivores after Adam and Eve had their famous snack? That too required genetic change. Fake science for the believers.

  8. As far as the Scriptural authority for this, this is is noteworthy because one of the famous trivia about the Bible – meaning the edition for most fundamentalists, the modern KV – “the word ‘cat” does not appear in the Bible”. (See Wikipedia article “List of animals in the Bible”.)

    And this tells us that the features of modern houscats which make them endearing to so many humans – micro-evolved after the Flood. Your Tiger and Missy were not created by God, but are a result of Adam’s Fall.

  9. Wow. This is serious creationist mumbo. Just in time too. Fox News
    just ran a piece about a 150 MYBP ichthysaurus fossil found for the first time in India, extending the worldwide documentation for this creature to Asia. Behold the Cat will surely put these godless Fox News people in their place!

  10. SC says “Your curmudgeon doesn’t like cats”. Yes but rumor has it that the lads (your faultless Dobermans) REALLY like cats (they taste just like chicken).

  11. Michael Fugate

    No mention of Samson and the lion? Daniel and the lion’s den? A good AiG should tie in as many obscure Bible references as possible.

  12. No use of the word “cat”. There are mentions of felines. Nothing about the species or genus of domesitc cat.

  13. Dave Luckett

    What TomS implies is that AiG is merrily adding to scripture, which is in fact the case. I have always been gobsmacked by the insouciant hypocrisy required to perform this feat, while insisting that the text is holy. If the scripture is the very Word of God, then one who adds to it is claiming to be God, or at the very least, to speak for Him.

  14. Michael Fugate

    TomS that was not a reply to you, but just that the cat “kind” is something AiG would normally play up more – lions, tigers, but not bears, oh my!

  15. And I also wanted to point out in this extended scriptural exposition, God is not responsible for the cuteness of domestic cats, that just being one of the consequence of Adam’s sin.

  16. The ancient Hebrews did NOT even know about the existence of the domestic cat, despite the Exodus fiction about Hebrews escaping from slavery in Egypt. Hence domestic cats and giant pyramids are not to be found anywhere in the bible because the Hebrews didn’t know about their existence.

  17. @Och Will

    Lads?

    Apollo and Zeus?

  18. @Christine Janis

    Quolls — every bit as cute as possums.

  19. They’re called quolls. And they have pouches

    So has Ken Ham. And rather deep ones, too.

  20. TomS got it wrong once again: “God is not responsible for the cuteness of domestic cats.”
    Of course he is. It’s when cats are not cute that he is not responsible, like in that picture above. You have violated the important fundie principle:

    1. Something good? Praise the Lord.
    2. Something bad? Blame Homo Sapiens.

    At the other hand Random is right:

    Makes me wonder if felines and possums belong to the same kind. Hyperaccelerated evolution after the Great Flood, you know.

  21. The “Behold the X” series may be boring, fortunately the comments inspired by them rarely are. Sometimes I think we here are better at creacrap “science” than those creacrap outfits themselves.

  22. mnb0 says:

    The “Behold the X” series may be boring, fortunately the comments inspired by them rarely are.

    I agree. But in my defense, I only post a “Behold” item when I can’t find anything else. And in defense of the creationists, put yourself in their situation. They have no facts, they don’t do research, and nothing in their universe ever makes any sense — but it’s their job to write something every day. So when they’re desperate for something to say they point to some creature and declare that it’s a miracle. Silly stuff, I agree, but it’s a sign of their desperation.

  23. First I’m pro-cat, anybody who ever owned a mouser will attest to their capabilities of decimating rodent pests. As to the other rodents at AIG this Ark and Fall nonsense reads like adult fairy tales for the ungifted. Beyond moronic the latest AIG spiel is simply soporific. I agree with the Curmudgeon their latest efforts do reek of desperation.

  24. According to creationists, everything is either
    1. A miracle. Thus a proof of God.
    2. Not a miracle. Thus a proof of divine design.
    3. Both.
    In any case, it is a better explanation than any possible natural, evolutionary explanation.

  25. There is a black snake whose home is underneath my front porch. I have been impressed with the disappearance of small furry animals (rat “kinds”?) and prefer the odd snake skin to the prolific and invasive cat hairs (which seem to breed on their own).
    I prefer dogs, then nonvenomous snakes, and then cats which are tied with pigs.

  26. SC, while the series is boring it is all on creationists. They’ve lost a lot of their talent in recent years. And yes that’s saying something.

  27. I don’t expect mere logic to make a difference. I was hoping to make an appeal to emotion of cat-lovers.
    Are we to accept that the saber-tooth (and size) of the smilodon is a mere micro-evolution? The speed of the cheetah? The camouflage of several wild felines?

  28. BTW there is a book with text and lots of nice drawings of extant and extinct felines
    The Big Cats and their fossil relatives: An Illustrated Guide to Their Evolution and Natural History
    text by Alan Turner, illustrations by Mauricio Anton
    Olulumbia University Press, New York, 1997

  29. I don’t like cats or dogs! They are too skinny to barbecue so prefer other stuff.

  30. “Hebrews didn’t know about [giant pyramids’] existence.”
    They must have done, because Joseph had them built to store the corn for the seven years famine in Gen 41.

  31. Michael Fugate

    Any housing secretary worth their salt would know that!

  32. Skeptical Servant

    This is why I can’t take AIG seriously it sounds like a bunch religious propaganda and they still don’t get even if evolution didn’t happen the world is still old.

  33. Mark Germano

    The great thing about this series is that AIG can substitute bird (or dog, or fish, or rodent) for cat, and all their “research” is still valid. Because what changes?

    Ta-Daaaaaaaaa!

  34. And they caan substitute T. rex, unicorn, or shmoo.

  35. Techreseller

    I knew I liked you SC. Cats, Bleh! Why would you want a creature as a pet that considers itself superior to you? And disdains your very existence? Makes no sense.

  36. @Techreseller

    The same questions might be put to God re humans.

    We are God’s cats. I am God’s Honky Cat.

    I’ll get back later.