Is it consistent, on the one hand, to hold to an evolutionary world view, and yet claim, on the other hand, that humans who are causing the extinction of other creatures are improperly interfering with the evolutionary process (e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest) that’s been shaping the development of those creatures?

That was the question bumping around in my mind on Sunday evening after listening to an interview with Conservationist,  Dr. Samuel Turvey (pictured), concerning the extinction of the Baiji – also known as the Yangtze River Dolphin.

During my Sunday afternoon drive home a couple of days ago, I found myself inadvertently listening to a program called Earth Beat – a product of Radio Netherlands Worldwide – courtesy of ABC News Radio, Australia. During the program we learned that Dr. Turvey has spent quite a bit of time working to locate and preserve any remaining members of the species that had been in steep decline for several decades. As it turns out, he was too late.

The Earth Beat website says that Dr. Turvey describes the demise of the dolphin as “a national tragedy and an international disgrace.” [emphasis mine]

Elsewhere, in several articles citing the paper co-written by Dr. Turvey concerning the extinction of the Baiji (a paper subsequently published in the Royal Society Biology Letters journal), he is also quoted as saying, “This extinction represents the disappearance of a complete branch of the evolutionary tree of life and emphasises that we have yet to take full responsibility in our role as guardians of the planet.”

Now I want you to keep in mind that the broader context of this story is an evolutionary world view. That’s critical context, given that we are dealing with the attempted conservation of a species that has arguably been eradicated by the industrialisation of the Yangtze River.

So here’s the remark that really caught my attention. Earth Beat host, Marnie Chesterton, says:

Read the rest of this entry

In the comments section of my article “Answering questions and objections,” [1] one of our regular visitors here at the Aristophrenium posed a question to me regarding how the universe and this world operate with respect to God (particularly with a view toward Walton’s exegesis of the Genesis creation account). And once again the depth that I wanted to invest my response with came up against the word-count restriction imposed on comments. Like I said previously, it takes few words to ask a controversial question but far more words to answer it appropriately.

His question itself smacked of deism, I thought, and he seemed to be wondering how it would play out under Walton’s view. Essentially what he wanted to know was whether or not interpreting Genesis under a function-oriented ontology would allow for God’s material creation “to ‘function’ according to the mechanics He devised for it.”

So my question, then: Wouldn’t this also allow for evolution? Life functions according to the mechanics that God has devised for it? That is why, as Adam [Morgan] pointed out, God created ‘kinds’ of animals in Genesis. Then it would be a simple matter to let them ‘expand’ in number based on how He made them. I have heard that Walton is a rather staunch anti-evolutionist, but how can this not fit? [2]

And he wanted an answer deeper than simply “God didn’t create life that way,” but rather an answer with some kind of support for it. So here then is my answer to our intrepid visitor, posted where I have a little more room to write.

Still looking at Genesis for material origins

So first things first: God certainly did bring “every individual species” into material existence (more on this in a moment); however, the point being made here is that the Genesis account is not a record of that. As Walton explained, there is a distinction between building a temple and creating a temple; the former regards the construction phase, but upon completion we do not yet have a “temple.” Without establishing its functions and functionaries and God coming to rest in it during the inauguration ceremony, it is nothing more than an ornate stone and wooden edifice; the “temple” does not exist yet. Your question regards the construction phase, the evolution of kinds and species over billions of years, but Genesis regards the inauguration phase so it is wrongheaded to mine the text for insight on that. The Genesis account presupposes the building phase in its disclosure of the inauguration phase, where God establishes the functions and functionaries and comes to rest in the newly created cosmic temple. Again, Genesis is an account of this seven-day inauguration ceremony, an account that begins with a non-existent temple, not non-existent material. With the building ready, the ceremony can now usher in the creation of the temple.

Scriptures are clear that God brings everything into material existence, but Genesis is not that story. It is an account of the beginning of redemptive history, which is an anthropocentric story rooted in the sovereign purposes of God who tabernacles with his image-bearers, set in motion during the creation of this cosmic temple which God prepared over a seven-day inauguration ceremony and came to rest in, and from which he providentially ordains redemptive history according to his purposes. The beginning of redemptive history is found in God preparing and entering this cosmic temple, with Adam and Eve established as his image-bearers and stewards. And we know how the story plays out thereafter. This temple motif saturates Scriptures; even our own bodies are described in temple terms. No less is the cosmic order itself a temple, from which God tabernacles with his image-bearers through redemptive history, beginning with Adam and Eve as detailed in Genesis.

Deism: winding up the clock and letting it go

The construction phase of this temple is not accounted for in Genesis; it presupposes the material elements (i.e., the building is already erected). But by no means was God uninvolved in the material phase of construction. The notion that you presented, that God created the universe and then left it to operate according to the laws of nature that he designed, is not only foreign to Walton’s exegesis but also to Scriptures as a whole. Such a notion presupposes an interventionist dichotomy between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ which cannot be found in Scriptures, a notion the origin of which is found in the deistic views of the Enlightenment. Scriptures (and Walton) strongly oppose that sort of view, rejecting that God is ever ‘hands-off’ with creation, only intervening here and there ‘supernaturally’, nor does such a view even find any correspondence in the cultures of the ancient Near East. (And I would note that this would be the sense in which Walton is a “rather staunch anti-evolutionist;” namely, Walton is steadfast against both atheistic and deistic notions of evolution since, contrary to atheism, God exists and, contrary to deism, he is never unplugged from creation that way. Moreover, because I understand his view on theistic evolution I am able to articulate it, although I do not myself subscribe to it.)

Consider for example the conception and fetal development of a human. It is obvious that we understand embryology scientifically; the ovum, the sperm, fertilization, genetics, cell signaling and so on, from zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus and so forth. It is a broad and well attested scientific field. We understand fairly well how all this works ‘naturally’. And yet what does the Bible say? “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psa. 139:13); “The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jer. 1:4-5). An interventionist dichotomy between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ does not exist in Scriptures; that is, God is not hands-off with respect to nature, intervening here and there. Identifying and understanding the material means by which something happens does not preclude the agency of God in those means. This applies to your question about evolution: we may understand, to one degree or another, how evolution works, the material means by which evolution occurs (like with embryology) but this does not allow us to preclude the agency of God in those means, to think he is hands-off and letting nature work on its own (again, like with embryology). God is definitively and providentially hands-on in the universe. “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:16-17; notice that last clause in particular).

This is yet another problem inherent with young-earth creationism, which tends to assume the same sort of dichotomy: they say that God resting on the seventh-day indicates that henceforth he ceased his work of material creation. But such Scriptures as Psalm 139:13-15 for example defies such a view! See especially verse 15, where the psalmist characterizes his development in his mother’s womb in terms that harken the mind to Genesis. For them to think that God specially created Adam and Eve but not Cain or Abel or anyone or anything else because he ceased specially creating on day seven, letting the laws of nature take it from there, simply defies the biblical witness. From one issue to the next their interpretation of Genesis (under its own terms), shoulders noteworthy problems—which by contrast underscores the strength, coherence, and consistency of Walton’s exegesis of Genesis (under its own terms.)

Not only is God the one who brings all things into material existence but he is also the one who continually sustains all of creation. The idea that God got everything running and then stood back to let nature do its thing “would have been laughable in the ancient world because it was not even conceivable,” Walton notes. “The ancients would never dream of addressing how things might have come into being without God or what ‘natural’ processes he might have used.” If God were to unplug himself from creation the way deists think, Walton observed, everything would immediately cease to exist. [3] Quite frankly, God’s agency is manifest in the formation of every creature of every species of every kind in every age. There is no such thing as God-of-the-gaps; in other words, science does not push God out of creation, but rather discovers the means of his creative agency—like with embryology.

References:

1. Smart, D. (2011, May 10). “Answering questions and objections.” Aristophrenium. [Blog]. http://aristophrenium.com, 17/May/2011.
2. Joe (2011, May 16). Comment to Smart (2011), para. 2.
3. Walton, J. (2009). The Lost World of Genesis One. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; pp. 20-21.

Due to the word-count restriction in the comments area, I have chosen to address in a blog post many of the questions and objections being submitted in response to my posts on the Genesis creation account, since it takes more words to answer a controversial question than it does to ask it—and there are several being asked. I will not identify to whom each question or objection belongs; I am confident that people will recognize the substance of their question or objection in what follows. (I have also chosen to reframe each question or objection in my own words.)

Read the rest of this entry

In a recently published article [1] Duane Proud, a dear friend and colleague of ours here at the Aristophrenium and one of its founding contributors, published what he understands to be Statham’s misgivings [2] about Walton’s central thesis on how the Genesis creation account might be properly understood exegetically. [3] While this is quite appropriate for Proud, given that the origins debate is his primary interest here at the Aristophrenium (i.e., creation versus evolution), I do find myself wishing that he had reached out to me prior to publication because, quite frankly, it does appear that Statham was rather confused about the book he was reviewing. That, in addition to the fact that Proud has not read Walton’s book, is why I say that he published what he understands “to be Statham’s misgivings,” putting the onus on Statham. There is not a lot I can say about Statham’s review because I am still waiting for a copy of his article, as I have been since Proud brought it to my attention November 28 last year in a personal email. [4] But if Proud had have reached out to me I could have cleared some of this fog up, injecting these concepts with the coherence needed for him to digest the ideas, allowing him to publish an article that hits closer to its mark. Instead, I shall have to provide that further clarification here.

Read the rest of this entry

My  esteemed blogging colleague, David Smart (aka ‘Ryft’), has written on two recent occasions now^[1], about a novel approach to the reading of the creation account in Genesis 1. It is a view promoted by John Walton in his book, The Lost World of Genesis One (2009).

I must be clear from the outset that this is not a book review. I have not read the book and must therefore rely on secondary citations and explanations of his thesis from people like David, and others. Yet, my attempts at digesting the idea have thus far been only moderately successful and the concepts presented still lack coherence in my own mind. To be as gracious as possible, I must at this point attribute this apparent incoherence to my own limitations. But I certainly look forward to further clarification.

On the surface, I can relate to objections from those who want to reject Walton’s arguments on the basis of historical theology. That is, if the early church fathers never thought Genesis 1 means what Walton thinks it means, how is it that we should now trust Walton’s interpretation? Well, we should trust it on the basis of a demonstrably sound hermeneutic I guess. This approach must necessarily presume nothing of what people like Augustine, Basil, Aquinas, Origen, etc., thought about Genesis, but focus on the Scripture itself. However, Walton’s conclusion then tends to require us to consider that the people who lived in the first few centuries after Christ lacked the recently recovered knowledge that Walton claims now makes it possible to receive this revelation in a new light. That at least, should give us pause. But just how long this ancient knowledge has been lost to us I do not know. Perhaps The Lost World of Genesis One has those answers.

Many of the online reviews of Walton’s book that I skimmed were quite positive on balance. But one review that has helped me get a foothold on this topic and  clear away some of the smog, is a critical piece by Dominic Statham, who wrote in the December 2010 edition of the Journal of Creation (JoC).^[2,3] (Note: All quoted material in this article comes from Statham’s review, unless stated otherwise. Any errors are most likely my own.) And of course, if Statham has misrepresented Walton in any way, my apparent moment of clarity may again be overcome by the smog. But let’s press on in hope.

Read the rest of this entry

This evening I had my attention directed back to the article that Joshua Whipps had written at his web site, “On old-earth presuppositions.” [1] Since I had already read his article previously (and responded to it), [2] I decided to scroll down to the comments area to see what sort of discussion had taken place. While reading Whipps’ response to one of his visitors I found a couple of comments of his that I wanted to reply to.

In his an explanation of the presupposition which all “secularist evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, and old-earth creationists” share in common in one particular area (that is to say, “that which governs their theory of fact”), he asked the following question of his visitor: Where did the old-earth creationist “get the idea that he was supposed to be driving this direction?” In other words, where did he get the idea that facts should ever be governed “by naturalistic principle” at any point? [3] (Since he said that all three groups share the same presupposition, and the only presupposition he identifies is the “naturalistic principle,” I understand him to be saying that this is the metaphorical car they are all driving in.) Did the old-earth creationist get this idea from his own interpretation of the facts or from God’s via Scripture?

First, if a presupposition by definition is not a conclusion, then it cannot be something that an old-earth creationist derived from his own interpretation of the facts; not to put too fine a point on it but a “theory of fact” is precisely what governs the interpretation in the first place. So wherever he got it from, it was something that he brought to the interpretation, not something he got from the interpretation. Thus, the idea that he should be driving in this direction, that a naturalistic principle should be presupposed at any point in his world view, is something he got from God’s word as authoritative or from somewhere else which he autonomously deemed authoritative.

Second, and more importantly, I submit that Whipps committed the question-begging Loaded Question rhetorical device. Namely, just as the question, “Have you stopped beating your spouse?” assumes that you actually have beaten your spouse, in the very same way his question assumes that the old-earth creationist actually shares the same idea in common with those evolutionists. Consequently, just as someone who has never beaten their spouse would take issue with the assumption lurking within the question about spousal abuse, so an old-earth creationist such as myself would take issue with the assumption lurking within Whipps’ question about old-earth presuppositions. The table could be turned with a sharp question for Whipps himself: “If you are assuming that all old-earth creationists possess this naturalistic presupposition at some point in their view with respect to creation, then what is your justification for doing so?” This assumption of his, after all, is either with or without warrant. And it certainly doesn’t follow that a naturalistic presupposition necessarily operates to some degree at bottom of all old-earth creationists, since I maintain an old-earth view of creation with biblical presuppositions grounding all inquiry including that one. I firmly stand on the very same ground that Whipps himself does; namely, all of Scripture, as well as its Author, is my presupposition. Are there old-earth creationists whose theory of fact and view of creation are in some way grounded in a naturalistic presupposition? Perhaps. We may grant that Whipps has encountered any number of such persons. However, that does not have any bearing on the fact that an old-earth view of creation may arise from the presupposition of Scripture and its Author and studying the texts exegetically. With respect to such old-earth creationists, his Loaded Question is deeply problematic. Just as his visitor pointed out, autonomous reasoning is not driving their conclusions.

~ * ~

Whipps claims that he doesn’t bring any ideas to the text in Genesis that are foreign to it, that the text not only states that the days of creation are six consecutive 24-hour periods but also demands that we believe it. To teach contrary to this, he says, is to deny the teaching of Scripture and impose autonomous man’s assertion of authority over the text. [4] I take no issue with this. I fully agree with him on this point. But he actually does bring an idea to the text that is not derived from it, that is foreign to it; namely, the idea that in the Genesis creation account God is bringing the world into material existence. He is assuming that creation in this text is a material activity, and I say that he is assuming it because nowhere does he perform any exegesis of the text to establish that concept. It is something he brought to the text (eisegesis), not something he derived from it (exegesis). If we receive the text as authoritative, then surely it is a grave error to claim of the text something it never intended to say. He needs to show using sound exegesis of the text that the creation in Genesis is a material activity, not simply assert it. And his appeal to “the history of the church” and “the confessions we adhere to” should be secondary, coming after he has made his case on an exegesis of the text grounded in the presupposition of Scripture and its Author.

1. Whipps, J. (2010, September 17). "On old earth presuppositions." RazorsKiss [blog]. http://razorskiss.net (19 April 2011).
2. Smart, D. (2010, September 19). “On old earth vs. young earth debate.” Aristophrenium [blog]. http://aristophrenium.com (19 April 2011).
3. Whipps, comment 24 September 2010, para. 1.
4. Ibid, para. 2 and 3.

The heart of this post, I hope, can be summarily found in a statement by James Emery White. “What decisively marks a Christian mind is that it is informed by revelation … and then proceeds to think in light of that revelation.” – White, J.E., Serious Times, (Inter Varsity Press, 2004), p.104

With that said I just want to make it clear that my main goal in this post is to demonstrate the natural consequences of biblical compromise. So while I do make many statements against an evolutionary worldview, my intention is simply to highlight the compromise position of the piece for Christian readers – being that it is allegedly written from a Christian’s perspective – and not to engage in great detail on the finite details of the evolutionary worldview. Therefore I do not intend to allow (or argue against) conclusions drawn by non-Christians, who do not accept such authority in the first place and have their own a priori materialistic paradigms and philosophies that will not, by definition, permit some of the conclusions I have made.^[1] Those discussions belong in a separate area.

The article (written a few years ago now) by Peter Sellick is titled “Intelligent Design – Damaging Good Science and Good Theology” – Friday, 9 September 2005. But it does represent a growing view among some evangelical Christians. For example, the recent book by Denis Alexander, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? 

I have not dealt with every comment in Sellick’s article because it’s just too long. But I think I have captured and responded to the main points.

According to the On Line Opinion webpage, Peter Sellick is currently an Anglican deacon working in Perth (Western Australia) with a background in the biological sciences. This, I am sure, makes him far more qualified than I to speak on theology or science, but I humbly offer this criticism as one who cares about the truth of Scripture.

The idea of intelligent design is that the universe, particularly the life contained therein, is too complex to have happened by chance as the theory of evolution would have it.

A more complete representation of Intelligent Design (ID) would also mention the observation of what appears to be irreducibly complex systems and specified information with those systems.

Therefore its sole basis lies in a negative:

Keep in mind that this claim is right at the beginning of Sellick’s article and he immediately poisons the well. To the contrary, as many in the ID movement have pointed out, it is not some fall-back position that people cling to because they’re blinded to the wisdom of an evolutionary worldview. It is based on a positive: an innate ability to discern design in our world. It is supported by a historical knowledge of cause and effect, acknowledging that it is most reasonable to think that the source of information and complexity contained in living systems is due to the actions of an intelligent agent. This is a completely reasonable premise upon which ID can stand. It certainly does not lie ‘in a negative’.

On the other hand, evolution by natural selection (which Sellick seems to support) is a dysteleological process seen to act on systems already possessing the information and complexity that it is claimed to have produced, and therefore provides no reasonable basis to explain the origin of these systems in the first place.

the failure to imagine how natural selection could arrive at the complexity of life we see all around us.

Imagination isn’t the problem. Rationality is. Put simply, many people think it is more reasonable that complex information-bearing systems are the product of intelligence rather than the result of random mindless forces. If observation counts for anything in science, natural selection is extremely limited in what it can achieve. (See for example Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution). It simply acts on pre-existing complex systems. It cannot create them or add information to them. In fact, it is the contention of ID-ists like Phillip Johnson that natural selection has no demonstrable creative power at all.

“Darwinian theory insists that natural selection is a creative force of immense power … We have already seen that the hypothesis of creative natural selection lacks experimental support” [chapters 2 and 3] “and that it is disconfirmed by the fossil record. The molecular evidence adds further doubt … The hypothesis that natural selection has the degree of creative power required by Darwinist theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence … [But] Darwinist know that the mutation-selection mechanism can produce wings, eyes, and brains not because the mechanism can be observed to do anything of the kind, but because their guiding philosophy assures them that no other power is available to do the job. The absence from the cosmos of any Creator is therefore the essential starting point for Darwinism.” – Johnson, P.E., Darwin On Trial, (Inter Varsity Press 1993, 2nd edition), p. 95, 98, 117.

Read the rest of this entry

Have you ever seen the movie Weekend at Bernie’s, where the corpse of the recently murdered Bernie Lomax is paraded around town by two of his employees who are desperate to convince everyone that he’s alive?

Similarly, despite being presented as the best (the only) explanation for just about anything – from homology to morality; from origins to oration; from lifeless mindless chemicals to living thinking reasoning beings – some have likened evolution to a corpse being paraded around as if alive. For example, there is an apparent pattern of reporting in the secularised mainstream media (MSM) that builds up this facade by trumpeting the latest evolutionary interpretation, while remaining silent as it falls from grace (e.g. see the development on Tiktaalik below). Each new story then, has a cumulative affect, giving the impression that Neo-Darwinian evolution is being constantly validated.

In quite dissimilar fashion, every December, the Access Research Network^[1] publish a relatively unique list that summarises their top ten science news stories that have impacted the development of evolutionary and/or intelligent design perspectives on science. Or to be more specific, it highlights the many ways in which an intelligent design perspective is continuing to have increasingly more explanatory power in the investigation of “natural” systems, while underscoring the epic failure of the evolutionary paradigm to do likewise.

Honourable mentions on the list (those that didn’t make the top ten) include:

(1) The death of the “Primordial Soup” theory for the origin of life. (2) Recent genetic research indicating that chimps are more distant from humans than popularly argued by evolutionary proponents. (3) Evidence suggesting that Neanderthals were in fact fully human, having interbred with them. (4) Automatic turnstiles in cell membranes that expel up to 1500 molecules of toxins from the cell per minute.

Read the rest of this entry

In a 2010 interview with Casey Luskin from the Discovery Institute, expelled professor Caroline Crocker provides a snapshot of the war between Intelligent Design and Evolution proponents, citing some fairly blunt comments by Dr. Larry Moran – a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto.

Luskin: “Are there really students out there who have good reasons to be afraid about coming out of the closet that they’re pro-ID, or – as a cynical ID skeptic might say – is this just paranoia being spread, and there’s really no reason for these students to be afraid?”

Crocker: “…This is what [Moran] says about students – ‘Flunk the idiots. Forty percent of the freshman class at UCSD reject Darwinism. The university has become alarmed and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in ID. UCSD should never have admitted them in the first place. Just flunk the lot of them.’^[1] Well, do students have a reason to keep their views quiet? I would say, yes.”

Especially if they find themselves studying under the likes of Professor Moran or anybody of his ilk, because under such circumstances it’s not enough that students demonstrate an understanding of evolution. They must accept it – with all their heart, mind, soul and strength – as their working paradigm for discovering true scientific facts.

Moran writes in a 2007 blog article:

“… it is still quite remarkable that some significant percentage of fundamentalist Protestants can go to college and still reject the basic scientific fact that humans evolved. … It’s not good enough to just be able to mouth the “acceptable” version of the truth that the Professor wants. You actually have to open your mind to the possibility that science is correct and get an education.”

He laments though, “How do you distinguish between a good Christian who is lying for Jesus and one who has actually come to understand science? It seems really unfair to flunk the honest students who admit that they still reject science and pass the dishonest ones who hide their true beliefs.” Being a good Christian and understanding science are mutually exclusive, apparently?

But if students have to believe rather than understand a scientific theory, then science has become a religion. According to the radical Darwinists, a scientist could have a PhD, earn international honours in science, publish hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals, and save millions of lives, and yet, if a Darwin doubter, could be judged scientifically illiterate.^[2]

Dr. Moran agrees – “If they are undergraduates who don’t understand that evolution is a scientific fact, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, then they flunk the course. If they are graduate students in a science department, then they don’t get a Ph.D. If they are untenured faculty members in a science department, then they don’t get tenure.” ^{[3, 4]}

And so the war continues…

References & Notes:

1. As far as I could tell, the primary source for Crocker’s information is a blog entry by Moran in 2006, where the delightful expression “IDiots” can be found. The expression has since been used by some ID supporters to identify people who continue to conflate the Creationist movement with the ID movement in their writings. Moran, for example, often uses the expression “Intelligent Design Creationists.” Hence, some may consider him an “IDiot” for failing to make the appropriate distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism.
2. This is a quote from a previous article about the inherent religious aspects of science, as held by certain evolutionary zealots.
3. Note here that by “understand”, Moran means “accept”. Students must accept that evolution is a fact, not merely be able to regurgitate their notes, give alleged examples and cite authorities for support.
4. http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/michael-egnor-gets-it-right.html

The other night I was watching a show on tv called Richard Hammonds Invisible Worlds (BBC). One of the topics he covered was gecko feet which was quite facinating. The following article goes into some detail of this amazing creature and his feet.

Great Gecko Glue

The best explanation seems to be that the geckos’ feet can exploit the weak short-range bonds between molecules. That is, they stick via van der Waals forces. But for such weak forces to work, there must be an enormous intimate contact area between foot and surface, so that enough individual weak forces can add up to a very strong force.

Under an electron microscope, researchers have found that the feet have very fine hairs (setae), about 1/10th of a millimetre long and packed 5,000 per square mm (three million per square inch). In turn, the end of each seta has about 400–1,000 branches ending in a spatula-like structure about 0.2–0.5 µm (microns—less than 1/50,000th inch) long. These spatulae can provide the necessary contact area.

This website has some good images of geckos’ feet.

With special instruments, a team of biologists and engineers from several American universities analysed a seta from the foot of a Tokay gecko (Gekko gecko). The foot pad has an area of about 100 mm2 (0.16 sq. inch) and can produce 10 newtons of adhesive force (enough to support two pounds). But they showed that an individual seta had an attractive force 10 times stronger than expected. In fact, one seta is strong enough to support an ant’s weight, while a million could support a small child—about 10 N/cm2, where 10 newtons is about the weight of 1 kg. So the gecko has plenty of attractive force to spare. This means it can handle the rough, irregular surfaces of its natural habitat.

Actually, the attractive force is far greater when the seta is gently pressed into the surface and then pulled along. The force also changes with the angle at which the hair is attached to the surface, so that the seta can detach at about 30°. These elaborate properties are exploited by the gecko’s ‘unusually complex behaviour’1 of uncurling its toes when attaching, and unpeeling while detaching. This all means that the gecko can not only stick properly with each step, but also avoid getting stuck, all without using much energy.

In his explanation of this marvelous feature of the gecko, Richard Hammond said that the gecko had to develop this toe curling ability in order to unstick its feet in order to be able to move. The use of the word develop makes it obvious that there are heavy evolutionary overtones that are assumed as the mechanism by which the gecko’s feet came to be.

Can anyone else see the disconnect here?

Evolutionary theory is a slow gradual process. Yet here we find three abilities associated with the geckos’ feet that have to present at the same time in order to work. If the hairs are present without the toe curling ability (which Richard is suggesting here), then the poor gecko will no be able to move and will quickly become a meal to the nearest predator. Without the self-cleaning ability, the geckos’ feet will quickly become non-functioning/useless. And why evolve toe curling as a precursor to hairy feet? To claim that this is the path taken, screams a designer at the helm realising that toe curling is needed to have occured before the hair. And when does the self-cleaning occur? These are not just singular variations in the DNA to change, say, regular toes to curling toes. According to evolutionary theory changes in anatomy like this would have to take many many mutations.

Even if it is reasonable to believe evolution started the ball rolling by giving the gecko a toe curling ability and the gecko was able to function/breed with this ability even though it serves no purpose, where are all the toe curling lizards that didn’t evolve further down the gecko path? There is no “Darwins tree” here whether alive or in the fossil record.

Rather than believe a complex unsubstantiated evolutionary story, a designer at the helm seems a much more simple and likely explanation for such an amazing creature.