 it very efficiently! In fact, the discovery that non-venomous snakes also have active venom glands is fascinating from a creationist point of view.7 This research points to a sort of predator/prey arms race with toxins ending up as part of the venom which previously had other uses; e.g. a gene involved in digestion might, through a mutation (a degenerative, downhill change) have become expressed in the venom gland.8 Alternatively, since God foreknew the Fall of humankind (Genesis 3), perhaps the genetic information for these rather macabre features (including toxic venom) was created originally, but only switched on as part of the Curse—this idea fits well with the modern understanding of gene regulation.
Another possibility is that God fundamentally redesigned creatures like snakes (at the genetic level) after the Fall. At the very least, God apparently ‘redesigned’ the serpent, through which Satan spoke to Eve, so that it had to crawl on its belly.9 This does have God designing ‘bad things’ but, as with all things in a Fallen world, it is His sovereign right to judge sin—and we don’t read that God pronounced things “very good” (unlike in Genesis 1:31) after the Fall! Of course, one or more explanations might apply to the various different snake attack structures that we see today. This is informed speculation though, because the scriptural record is silent on these matters.
References and notes
- Shine, R., Snakes, in: Encyclopedia of Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd edition, Weldon Owen Pty Limited, Fog City Press, California, USA, pp. 204–205, 2003. The author, Dr Richard Shine, is Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of Sydney, Australia. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., Snakes do eat dust! Creation 10(4):38, 1988; <creation.com/snakedust>. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, p. 177. Return to text.
- Pahari, S., Mackessy, S.P. and Manjunatha Kini, R., The venom gland transcriptome of the Desert Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus edwardsii): towards an understanding of venom composition among advanced snakes (superfamily Colubroidea), BMC Molecular Biology 8:115, 2007; <www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2199/8 /115>. Return to text.
- A system that shows irreducible complexity is made up of several interacting parts, all of which are vital to the function. Therefore, such a system cannot be produced by slight, successive changes to a precursor. See Behe, M., Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, The Free Press, New York, USA, p. 39, 1996. Return to text.
- Ref. 1, p. 208. Return to text.
- Fry, B.G. et al., Early evolution of the venom system in lizards and snakes, Nature 439(7076):584–588, 2 February 2006. Return to text.
- Duane, D., Dr Fry’s near fatal attraction, <www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/ 0509/features/snake_venom_doc.html>, 2 September 2008. Return to text.
- See Bell, P., Of snakes, lizards and mosasaurs—evolutionists puzzle over snake origins, Creation 31(3):15–17, 2009. Return to text.
(Available in Russian)
Another indicator of redesign or extra creation might be Genesis 3:18. The earth would now bring forth thorns and thistles. Now it isn't conclusive that thorns and thistles were new creations, it does seem like they are a new thing which is part of the curse. If this is the case, there is nothing preventing God, in the scriptural account, from having created many new features. Also, since the thorns exist on other plants (roses, blackberries, etc.) it seems an addition to an existing creation rather than a new lifeform. This would also be consistent with the creation of new features for things like the snake.
Keep up the great work!
Chapter 6 of the Creation Answers Book is well worth reading in this regard: creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter6.pdf
Click store to checkout.
Remove All Products in Cart