ICR: Overwhelming Evidence of Creation

This is powerful stuff from the creation scientists at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. It’s titled Complex Creature Engineering Requires a Creator, written by Jeffrey P. Tomkins. At the end it says: ” Dr. Tomkins is Director of Life Sciences at the Institute for Creation Research and earned his Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University.”

As he did last month — see ICR Has Absolute Proof of Creationism — Jeffrey discusses the amazing features of some species, and argues that only a creator could have produced such creatures. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Bats are a remarkable example of God’s handiwork. Especially, their sonar capabilities put anything human-engineered to shame. These creatures appear suddenly in the fossil record in Eocene strata with no evolutionary precursors, and their fossils look just like modern bats. Bats are the only mammals capable of true and sustained flight like birds. In fact, they are even more maneuverable in the air than most birds are.

Wowie — bats have “no evolutionary precursors.” It’s true that bats don’t fossilize well, but Wikipedia has a lot of information on the evolution of bats. Aside from that, Jeffrey says:

Bats use an incredibly complex form of echolocation to locate prey in the dark. As they zip through the air, they constantly emit and sense sound waves to accurately pinpoint the exact locations of moving targets, which they then snatch out of the air and eat completely “on the fly.”

Yes, it’s amazing. Obviously designed. Skipping some more bat info, Jeffrey then talks about bees. He tells us:

One aspect of honey bees that fascinates scientists is their eusocial (cooperative interaction) behavior, especially when it comes to locating food and other resources and then communicating that highly specific information to their hive mates on their return. When a foraging bee discovers a new food or water source, it flies back to the hive and conveys the exact coordinates of the resource through a high-tech waggle dance in a figure-eight pattern. The angle of the dance in relation to the sun confers the direction, while the amount of waggling confers distance and the general utility of the resource (e.g., food or water).

Ooooooooooooh! Obviously designed. Then he switches to yet another amazing species:

Monarch butterflies’ annual long-distance migrations are yet another example of the Creator’s genius. These insects accurately navigate a southwesterly course on a 2,400-mile autumn trip starting from Canada and the northern U.S. and ending up in specific sites in Mexican forests.

Ooooooooooooh! He continues:

Part of this extraordinary journey can take the butterflies across hundreds of miles of open ocean in the Gulf of Mexico. [Gasp!] The butterflies navigate the whole journey by continuously tracking data with their eyes on the horizontal position of the sun over the course of the day.

Jeffrey finishes his discussion of butterflies — and the whole post — with this:

God’s design in this small insect and other creatures puts man’s efforts to shame.

You can’t deny it, dear reader. The evidence of creation keeps piling up. How much longer will you cling to your foolish Darwinism?

Copyright © 2019. 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

15 responses to “ICR: Overwhelming Evidence of Creation

  1. their sonar capabilities put anything human-engineered to shame.
    Once again, because X is unlike anything that we know of that is designed, X must be designed.
    It takes some doing to come up with an argument that is worse than the “god of the gaps”.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    Why did the designer have to make an odd-ball mammal that flies when he had petty good design with birds already? Why did he have to develop echolocation when he created very effective night vision for some birds?

  3. paul collier

    Nobody despises YECs & their archaic drivel more than I–but I was struck by the lack of any scientific pushback on this by either our Curmudgeon or our 2 commenters. The cases cited in that piece by Tompkins are indeed astounding. I’m sure there are refutations somewhere. Glib sarcasm won’t cut it.

  4. Mark Germano

    In case any one was worried that man being able to engineer something found in nature would be evidence against Creation, rest easy, ICR is on it.


  5. chris schilling

    This Jeff P. Bumpkins stuff is barely a cut above what you might read in a crude JW Watchtower throwaway: basically, the writer (makes no difference who, or what credentials they hold — they all write alike) gives a physiological rundown of attributes from some piece of fauna or flora, and then tacks God on the end of it.

    Complexity is a red herring. We want to know (we few, we happy few, we disciples of TomS) how and why the inferred designer — an immaterial entity, after all — was forced, or reduced, to working with purely material, naturalistic means; means which — when followed to their logical ends — ultimately obviate the need for a sentient designer in the first place.

  6. Michael Fugate

    @paul, what do you want to know?
    Shrews can echolocate – probably it’s ancestral in bats and lost in frugivores. A 50My bat fossil suggests they were arboreal gliders.
    This is all easy to find…

  7. @paul collier
    I prefer to answer creationists’ arguments en masse, for there is a limitless potential of wonderous features of the world of life. How much more time and effort will it take to establish a scientific explanation for a feature of life than to ask about it? I note particularly that the examples brought up are about features of life which do not easily fossilize: echo location, bee communication, butterfly migration.
    There is no attempt on the part of the creationists to describe what a creator/does, how or why, were or when, so that there are these – or any other – behaviors arose in the world of life. So that even if it were shown that evolution could not account for X, this doesn’t place creationism in a superior position.
    But I was pointing out a further flaw in their reasoning. They actually bring forth an analogy which weakens their position: these behaviors are unlike any design that we know of.
    This is no satire, no exaggeration, no joking, no sarcasm.

  8. @PaulC: “the lack of any scientific pushback”
    This will cut it even less and has the big disadvantage of taking this ICR-crap seriously. I suspect you don’t despise it enough yet or you would realize that like any creacrapper Tomkins doesn’t obey the rules of science, logic, empiry [empiricism?] and rationality in general. Hence any scientific pushback is a total waste on this guy – or on any creacrapper. Did they obey such rules they would be forced to throw creacrap where it belongs.

    “I’m sure there are refutations somewhere.”
    So is everyone here.

    “Glib sarcasm won’t cut it”
    but is much more fun than preaching for our own choir and bringing water to the sea. But if you enjoy such activities, be invited and provide such refutations yourself. If you’re at it you perhaps can also give us scientific refutations of astrology, ufology, faith healing and dowsing etc. Success!

  9. I’m sure there are refutations…
    There are plenty of examples were there were no refutations at that time, and it did not make any difference:
    The lack of an intermediate fossil between jaw bone and middle ear.
    The lack of an intermediate fossil between symmetric eyes and eye on one side on flatfish
    The missing neutrinos from the sun.
    And, just recently, the acceleration of cosmic expansion.
    And we haven’t heard of this, but why not? High temperature superconductivity.
    There will always be puzzles in science. Things which nobody understands. That is what attracts people to be scientists. And the existence of problems is not evidence of the supernatural – unless someone can show how the supernatural explains the problem. “Anything is possible” or “God’s ways are inscrutable” are not close to being explanations.
    Is there an evolutionary explanation of butterfly migrations? I don’t know. I do know that there is no supernatural explanation.

  10. Technology based sonar can “see” thousands of times farther than animal based sonar. The former can even see thousands of feet into the sea floor.

    Some insects are so hard wired that their behavior is 100% predictable. See, for example, how a parasitoid wasp checks out its burrow after dropping a paralyzed caterpillar next to the burrow opening. Moving the caterpillar a few inches away causes the wasp to relocate it next to the opening after reemerging and rechecking the burrow, and it will do this endlessly if you keep moving the caterpillar.

    It is also ironic that creationists who insist that the Earth is less that 10,000 years old would be relying on the same science that traced the evolution of insects back well beyond 400 million years ago, only to make their inane and quite insane arguments.

    There are no known creationists who are professional parasitologists.


  11. There are literally millions of species on Earth. Each one, by definition, has some unique feature that distinguishes it from the others. The scientific literature will never explain them all — nor does it need to. The mechanism of speciation is well understood.

    We can’t let creationists set the agenda by responding to what would be an endless series of demands to explain this, explain that, etc. We’d have no time to do anything else, and if we didn’t provide an immediate answer to some question, they would announce victory for supernatural creation. There is no scientific principle that says: “If you don’t have an immediate answer to all of my questions, then science has failed and Oogity Boogity has triumphed.”

  12. AfaIc we shouldn’t let creationists set any agenda.
    There is a funny aspect to the “If you don’t have an immediate answer to …..”.attitude. It implies that that science – specifically evolution theory – has good answers to many questions and that Oogity Boogity complements it – not what creationists want. Of course this assumes consistency, something very atypical for creationism.
    Apologies for the Dunglish above.


  13. The creationist presents an argument: Such and such needs an explanation. If you cannot provide an evolutionary explanation with detailed evidence for all of the steps, that lack shows that creation is true.
    Herbert Spencer wrote a brief essay on 1852 responding to that, “The Development Hypothesis”. One can read significant quotes in Wikiquote and the whole essay in Wikisource. Herbert Spencer is a better writer than I.
    If a creationist has an argument which is not covered by “The Development Hypothesis”, let’s hear about it. In many cases, the creationist arguments fail that test, but also fail for other reasons, which some of us find amusing: I, personally, find it amusing when the creationist scores an own goal. Often enough the creationist is arguing against a straw man. And from time to time, the argument can serve as an introduction to an interesting facet of evolutionary biology – the evolution of the mammalian middle ear ossicles was
    was once a case, but Wikipedia tells a lot about how evolution is capable of understanding, and puts to shame the
    poverty of alternatives.

  14. The opening paragraph is brilliant! You can substitute anything for “bats” and it reads the same. Ants, fish, giraffes, fairies, unicorns, Hobbits – it all works! Blessed be the Grand Designer!

  15. @docbill1351
    I find it particularly instructive to mention things which do not exist as having been designed.
    Hobbits were designed by an intelligent designer, JRR Tolkien.
    The first, oldest, meaning recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is
    ” A plan or scheme conceived in the mind and intended for subsequent execution; the preliminary conception of an idea that is to be carried into effect by action; a project.”
    That is, design is not enough to account for the existence of something.
    Of course, the creationists might have some other meaning for “design”, but they never get around to telling us what they have in mind. They might have in mind something like the first meaning in Wikipedia:
    “A specification of an object or process, referring to requirements to be satisfied and thus conditions to be met for them to solve a problem.” What requirements does God face, or conditions does he have to meet? I thought that God was all powerful, beyond any requirements or conditions.

    Yet there are people who take the nonsense of “intelligent design” seriously!