Darwin’s Arch Collapses, Creationists Are Silent

For the past two days we’ve been seeing zillions of news stories like this one from CBS News: Famed Darwin’s Arch collapses due to erosion in Galapagos Islands. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The famed Darwin’s Arch in the Galapagos Islands has lost its top. Officials are blaming natural erosion of the stone. Ecuador’s Environment Ministry reported the collapse on its Facebook page on Monday. “We report that the iconic Arc of Darwin collapsed,” it said in Spanish.

All the news stories have great pictures of the Arch. It was certainly a fine looking feature. You can also see it in Wikipedia: Darwin’s Arch. The news story then says:

Photos posted on social media by the ministry showed rubble from the arch’s curvature in the ocean but the two columns that held it up still standing, the Reuters news service said. The rock structure — 141 feet high, 230 feet long and 75feet wide — is less than half a mile from Darwin Island.

Darwin’s Arch, Darwin Island — you’d think that Darwin guy was somebody important. Anyway, CBS tells us:

“Obviously all the people from the Galapagos felt nostalgic because it’s something we’re familiar with since childhood, and to know that it has changed was a bit of a shock,” said Washington Tapia, director of conservation at Galapagos Conservancy. “However, from a scientific point of view, it’s part of the natural process. The fall is surely due to exogenous processes such as weathering and erosion which are things that normally happen on our planet.”

The news story ends with this:

The unique flora and fauna on the remote islands, some 600 miles off the coast of mainland Ecuador, are famous in part for inspiring Charles Darwin’s thoughts on evolution.

Your Curmudgeon has been waiting for some creationist website to start cheering that the collapse of Darwin’s Arch is a divine sign that the theory of evolution is also in a state of collapse. But we haven’t seen that yet. Why not? Surely the thought has occurred to them.

We’ve been trying to figure out why the creationists are so silent. A few reasons have occurred to us, for example, they may be thinking:

• Churches sometimes burn down and collapse, but that says nothing about the value of religion.

• Darwin didn’t build the arch — or name it — so its collapse doesn’t reflect on him at all.

• Saying that the collapse is a divine omen will sound stupid.

We could go on and on, but none of those reasons is convincing. Creationists never restrain themselves because their claims are absurd and make them look ridiculous — so what’s holding them back now?

Perhaps you can explain the creationists’ silence, dear reader. We’d like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

10 responses to “Darwin’s Arch Collapses, Creationists Are Silent

  1. siluriantrilobite

    Actually Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham’s obnoxious son-in-law, was cackling about it in today’s “Answers News.” See: https://youtu.be/cLgS9rixJqA

    Sent from my iPad


  2. Dave Luckett

    Nausea prevents my sitting through the layers of holy advertising to find out what Bodie Hodge and guests have to say about it. I don’t know if they’ll be daft enough to say that it’s a Judgement, or some such idiotic thing.

    It’s another reminder – kind of a dramatic one – that this Earth is constantly changing. Living things have to track those changes, and there is a mechanism – evolution – that allows them to do it.

  3. Charles Deetz ;)

    They are waiting for God to repair the arch so they can rename it Ham’s Arch.

  4. My theory to explain the Silence of the Creationists:

    Creationists hold that such an irreducibly perplexing stone arch was created 6,000 years ago by divine fiat and was declared, like the rest of the creation, ‘Good’.

    Over that span of time, they admit that it would display signs of micro-erosion, but that is insufficient to bring about any significant transformation into a different kind of geologic formation, such as a pile of rubble.

    So the Creationists are struggling as they contemplate whether

    (1) Darwin’s Arch was much older than 6,000 years, and macro-erosion does occur,


    (2) The fine-tuning architectural skills of the Intelligent Designer just ain’t what they’re cracked up to be.

    Either possibility is of course deeply troubling.

    In Creationist style, I offer no evidence here for my Theory of Creationist Embarrassment. And I will further allow that Creationists have never hitherto exhibited any sense of shame, no matter how egregious their nonsense.

    But if at some time soon some underground paramilitary wing of the DI or AiG falsely claim responsibility for bombing Darwin’s Arch as a blow for Academic Freedom, I think that would be virtual proof of my theory…

  5. @ Our Curmudgeon:

    On reflection, this blog posting should have been titled
    The Silence of the Hams

  6. You Darwinst fools are too blinded by your pernicious dogma to see the TRVTH here!

    Darwin’s Arch wasn’t slowly transformed over a long time by blind and undirected natural processes! It was redesigned and instantly re-engineered into a majestic matching pair of upright Stone Pillars!

    And where did the new information come from for that extraordinary trasmutation? Hah! All you smartypants so-called scientists can’t answer that one!

    But the Discoveroids do know, and are only constrained from giving the answer by an NDA they signed with The Almighty.

    All the same, one may hear emanating from an upstairs window of a shabby office building in downtown Seattle the joyful refrain of a re-jigged nursery song:

    Darwin’s Arch’s been re-designed!
    Re-designed, re-designed!
    Darwin’s Arch’s been re-designed,
    By our YAWEH!

  7. Redesigned. Or something. Animals grow and develop into changing forms, all of which are separately designed. Think of the design and redesign of 17 year cicadas.
    And then there is the fine tuning of the laws of thermodynamics. That is some design!

  8. Don’t think of it as losing Darwin’s arch, now we have “the Pillars of Evolution”!
    Reminds me of how the “face” on mars is really a butte.

  9. In other news, via Pharyngula, where is the discovery institute complaining that Nikole Hannah-Jones has been canceled?

  10. @ Troy: I dunno.

    There’s a gap between pillars, and wherever there’s a gap you can bet some Creationist will attempt to decant into it some supernatural agent of Oogity-Boogity…