AIG Says Butterflies Prove the Bible Is True

They keep finding evidence that Genesis is correct. Check this out from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He posted this yesterday at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: New Study: Butterfly Wings More Than Just Scales. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

God’s creation is amazing.[Yup!] Whether we look to the heavens at the massive scale of what he’s made or peer through microscopes to study atoms and molecules, we’re astounded by the complexity and design of his creation. And a new study [link omitted] on butterfly wings is no exception.

Hambo links to an article from UPI. Here’s a better one at PhysOrg: Beating the heat in the living wings of butterflies. Hambo says:

Butterfly wings are made up of tiny scales. Don’t get your hopes up — I don’t know of any evolutionists saying they believed dinosaurs evolved into butterflies (not yet anyway)!

Hambo is a funny guy! After that great display of creationist humor he tells us:

At any rate, the scales are delicate structures, and the wings can quickly overheat or cool down too much — at least, they would if God hadn’t provided them exactly what they need to regulate the temperature of their gorgeous and colorful wings.

Ooooooooooooh! Butterflies have a have divinely provided method of temperature regulation. Hambo continues:

Scientists have discovered active cells underneath the scales on butterfly wings. These cells serve as a “network of mechanical and temperature sensors, as well as a supportive circulatory and tracheal system.” One researcher explains,

[Hambo quotes Nanfang Yu, associate professor of applied physics at Columbia Engineering:] Butterfly wings are essentially vector light-detecting panels by which butterflies can accurately determine the intensity and direction of sunlight, and do this swiftly without using their eyes.

Hambo is overwhelmed with awe and declares:

Butterfly wings are even more complex than we thought! Such an intricate and careful design reminds us that butterflies are not the result of random, chance processes over millions of years. [Link to something at AIG omitted.] They were created by God and bear his fingerprint.

No doubt about it! Hambo concludes with this:

They’re just another example of why mankind is “without excuse” for refusing to acknowledge the Creator — his existence is obvious from what he’s made (Romans 1:20).

You are without excuse, dear reader. Isn’t it time you embraced The Truth?

Copyright © 2020. 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

12 responses to “AIG Says Butterflies Prove the Bible Is True

  1. Michael Fugate

    This guy claims Ham should be content to be impressed by Jesus and not seek his satisfaction in scales on butterfly wings and their nervous and circulatory system associations…
    https://rts.edu/resources/am-i-too-easily-impressed/

  2. The Bible does not mention butterflies, although it does mentions moths. In any case, it does not mentin on what “day” of Genesis they were created. Flying creatures were created on day five. But caterpillars: Genesis says that creeping things were created on day six.

  3. Of course Hammy would say butterflies prove the bible is true. I’d like him to tell us what would disprove the bible

  4. Richard Andersen

    ” . . .or peer through microscopes to study atoms and molecules,. . .” Does this guy really think that “atoms and molecules” are studied by peering through microscopes? He’s even dumber than I thought.

  5. Yes and no. He doesn’t think people study atoms and molecules by peering through microscopes, because he doesn’t actually think about it at all. It’s a sort of image in his head, a stereotype: scientist. The person peering into the microscope is wearing a lab coat, and is almost certainly male and white, with a narrow ascetic face, a high brow, and sleek wings of grey hair. Images like that are what Ham’s world is made of. They’re like illustrations from the Boys’ Own papers of long, long ago, Ripping Yarns without the humour.

    He apparently thinks in those images. They have only a loose connection with reality, and they’re disconnected one-offs. He doesn’t seem to think in connected ways at all, really. It cannot occur to him that natural processes produce complex patterns on the macroscopic scale – patterns like dendritic drainage, multilayered stratigraphy, cloudscapes, wave-forms, weather itself – and that there is no reason to suppose that they can’t be even more complex on the microscopic and sub-microscopic scale. He can’t think: “If you don’t need direct divine intervention to explain salt crystals or snowflakes, you don’t need it to explain butterfly wings.” That would require interpolation, a cognitive process that seems to be beyond him.

    It’s in his interests to give that impression in public, anyway. He isn’t trying to convince anyone capable of interpolative and extrapolative thought. Those people are trouble, and he actually wants them filtered out. There’s plenty of lower-hanging fruit to pluck. Hence this latest spiel. It has “false reasoning” written all over it, but you have to understand that for Ham, that’s a feature, not a bug.

    We often refer to outfits like AiG as bottom-feeders, but they’re really filter-feeders. They rely on throughput. Only a little of the flow is actually useful to them, but they make a very good living from that.

  6. Think “Nigerian Prince”.

  7. “Such an intricate and careful design reminds us”
    when “us” refers to creacrappers, because it’s rather obvious how natural selection ie evolution theory explains it. Apparently Ol’Hambo supposes that the last two independent brain cells of the average YECer now suffers from malfunction as well.

    @DaveL: spot on.

  8. Same old. Take a cool new scientific paper, write a god-did-it piece. How about a piece on god’s wonderful design of the coronavirus?

  9. Isn’t God able to design the universe as a whole, the geometry of space and time, the laws of physics and their parameters, including the laws of thermodynamics and of complex specified information – so that there is no need to design every minute feature of the world?

  10. Michael Fugate

    Isn’t likely that ID/creationism stem from a lack of imagination.

  11. Prove that the Bible is false?

    Just look in the Bible and see where it says “This document is false.” Perhaps that sentence got deleted

  12. A librarian reclassified Ken’s dinosaur book from science to religion. Curmudgeons prepare for income Hamrage.