One cannot help but chuckle when reading that [Moore's] work was cited by the Creation Research Society Quarterly as evidence of divine [sic] design . . .2
Sukhdeo's merriment obviously leaves one with the idea that creationists' citation of scientific works to illustrate their platform is not to be taken seriously. However, his evolutionary colleagues (and I would imagine Sukhdeo himself) were alarmed enough that a resolution was passed by the American Society of Parasitologists condemning creation science, saying, "The 123-year history of creationism clearly shows it to . . . be overwhelmingly rejected by the majority of Christian denominations and by scientists of all faiths."3
This is hardly surprising as many major denominations have forsaken a literal understanding of many basic Biblical tenets such as the book of Genesis, the virgin birth, and the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and have adopted evolutionism. But let's take a look at evolution's explanation of parasite origin. One of the largest parasite phyla is the Nematoda (roundworms). Is their view more credible?
A lack of clearly homologous characters and the absence of an informative fossil record have prevented us from deriving a consistent evolutionary framework for the phylum . . . although nematode parasites are generally assumed to have evolved from free-living ancestors, the precise origin and free-living sister taxa of each parasitic group are unknown.4
Creationists maintain nematodes have always been nematodes, changing only from a free-living stage in the soil to a parasitic stage after the Fall. Even evolutionists agree that all parasitic nematodes probably arose from terrestrial free-living groups. Additionally, parasites in general exhibit very high speciation rates, certainly no problem for the creationist and in keeping with a young earth paradigm.
Both evolutionists and creationists agree that in order for a creature to become a dependent internal parasite, two kinds of changes must take place. Each one of these dramatic changes (one morphologic and one physiologic) involves the loss of not only structure and physiology on the part of the would-be parasite, but the very genetic blueprints that produce these characters in a free-living organism. For example, the thorny-headed worms (Phylum Acanthocephala) are essentially a bag of reproductive structures with a spiky holdfast on one end and must depend wholly on their hosts for sustenance. Some creation scientists have presented a model of parasite origin based on loss of genetic information after the Curse (Genesis 3:17-18). Such genetic deficiency is what we can see and measure in the biological world. However, what is difficult to explain on the basis of degeneration, is how these now parasitic organisms can exist inside another as a foreign body and not evoke an immune response. One wonders what parasitic creatures may have been before the Fall.
1. Armitage, M. 2000. "Trematode Parasites: what is their genesis?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 36(4): 183-193.
2. Sukhdeo, M. `Book Review' Journal of Parasitology, 88(6) 2002, p. 1214.
4. Blaxter, M., et al., "A molecular evolutionary framework," Nature, v. 392, 1998, pp. 71-75.
Cite this article: Frank Sherwin, M.A. 2003. Those Hilarious Creationists. Acts & Facts. 32 (5).