There’s a thrilling new article from one of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
The title is Carnivorous Plants, written by Harry F. Sanders, III, about whom we know nothing. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Often overlooked because they cannot move from place to place, plants display some very unique, bizarre traits which are found in no other organisms. Carnivorous plants are one such example. Unlike other members of the plant community, carnivorous plants eat other organisms, usually insects.
Does AIG have a problem with carnivorous plants? Harry says:
This method of life presents an interesting challenge to creationists: how can this be reconciled with the biblical account of Genesis? [Yeah, there was no death before Adam & Eve ate that fruit.] There are a couple of different answers to the question, but we can be certain none of them impinge on the biblical account.
How can we be sure of that? Harry doesn’t give us an answer right away. Instead he tells us:
Darwin himself wrote about carnivorous plants in 1875. Darwin’s contribution to the study of carnivorous plants was indeed useful as he was the first to document carnivory in several genera of plants. Carnivorous plants are classified as several different taxonomic orders, having a variety of trapping mechanisms. There are, however, a few principles that are broadly true across the groupings.
Harry then spends several paragraphs describing various kinds of carnivorous plants. There are better sources of information, so we’ll skip all that to see what comes afterwards. Ah, here we go:
Biblically we know that there was no death prior to Adam’s fall in Genesis. [Yeah, we know that.] Yet carnivorous plants seem well equipped to capture prey. Can this be squared with God calling creation “very good” in Genesis 1?
Good question! It’ll be fun seeing the answer. Actually, Harry has three answers, starting here:
The first possible answer looks at how the Bible defines life. It is possible that insects are not alive according to the Bible’s definition of having the “breath of life.” [Two links to AIG articles omitted.] This would allow for these plants to eat insects in a pre-fall world and not violate God’s “very good” statement by introducing death before sin (Romans 8:19–23). In this view, these plants were designed to eat insects from the beginning and could have been designed to keep pre-fall insect populations from exploding. This view does face the issue that some larger carnivorous plants consume animals that are biblically alive. But God could have designed a way [There’s always a way!] to keep animals from getting trapped by such plants.
Harry continues with the next answer:
An alternative explanation is that carnivorous plants had a different function in a pre-fall world.
Yeah, who knows what the Venus flytraps were doing before the sin of Adam & Eve? Maybe they were playing baseball. Let’s read on:
A third possibility is that God redesigned carnivorous plants to perform their current function as part of the curse. We know that some plants, at least, were redesigned during the pronouncement of the curse since thorns and thistles arose during this time (Genesis 3:18). It is possible that other design changes took place at the same time, though this is not explicitly stated, making it unwise to be dogmatic on this point. All three arguments have merit. Whichever view is correct, carnivorous plants are not a problem for a creationist worldview.
There’s never a problem for the creationist worldview. Yahweh always has a solution. Here’s another excerpt from Harry’s brilliant essay:
Evolutionists must explain the origin of carnivory in plants. [Yeah, it’s not a creationist’s problem.]
That was the start of Harry’s final paragraph. It’s a big one, showing that evolutionists have nothing but problems. We’re left to conclude that the creationists have no problem at all — and of course they don’t. They have the answer to every question: God-did-it! Or, if you like Wikipedia articles, the answer is God of the gaps.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.