Beetle Mania

Congratulations to John Hinton for being one of a few Young Earth Creationists to accurately describe the anatomy of the bombardier beetle in the essay Beetles, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid [1].  Despite the title the essay only briefly discusses one type of beetle but to his credit Hinton is not claiming the bombardier beetle is on the verge of self-destruction.  Ironically, Hinton's article is hosted on Kent Hovind's web site at the same time Hovind is presenting false claims about the chemistry of the bombardier beetle.

Hinton describes evolution theorist Richard Dawkins as an "intellectual lightweight" and "a numbskull".  This is important because the evolutionary argument Hinton is debating is based upon what he recalls was written by Dawkins.  And he admits he isn't even sure it was Dawkins.  It goes without saying that no citations or references are provided to ascertain exactly who or what Hinton is arguing against.  Note that Hinton holds valid academic qualifications which leaves us wondering why he is being so sloppy.

Because Hinton has been lax with providing sources we need to practice some speculation about what exactly he is arguing against.  We know Hinton has Dawkins in mind and Dawkins did write a book about natural selection as an unguided design mechanism.  The book is The Blind Watchmaker [2] which does briefly mention the bombardier beetle. 

Hinton fires his first salvo against Dawkins;

..... Richard Dawkins has tried to say that this was simply nature making use of materials that it had around. Not only does this preposterous argument require that nature must have had forethought and design, but it fails to explain why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place ....[1]

If we are correct in assuming Hinton is arguing against Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker [2] we can only speculate why Hinton did not notice 400 pages of arguments Dawkins presented to support his assertion that nature does not require "forethought and design".

Here is what Dawkins wrote about "why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place"

While people may argue against Dawkins position, the pre-existing uses for the ingredients of the bombardier defense mechanism was not left unanswered.

Hinton continues;

This beetle is a particularly good proof that evolutionists are stupid. They only stutter or babble irrelevantly when presented with this example. The only [counter] argument that I've even seen was from a numbskull (I believe that it was Dawkins) who was criticizing a creation scientists [sic] for leaving out the catalase from his description. [1]

This is beautiful revisionist history.  The bombardier beetle argument has been circulating through Young Earth Creationist circles for decades.  The version of the argument Dawkins argued against was quoted from The Neck of the Giraffe by Francis Hitching. (Hitching was not a scientist of any description).  Dawkins noted the following misrepresentations contained in the argument;[2]

• hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone will react violently when mixed [False]
• an inhibitor is added to prevent this reaction [False]
• an anti-inhibitor is added to counter the inhibitor [False]

In addition to those three errors Dawkins noted the only additive is a catalyst to a normally unexciting mixture.  However, Hinton soldiered on;

In other words he was arguing against the creationist view by pointing out that the whole apparatus was much more complicated than the creationist had stated, and that the impossibility of it having come into being by chance was even greater. Two chemicals were proof enough of design; three chemicals are even greater proof! We could use more enemies like Dawkins.[1]

The "creationist view" Dawkins was arguing against had four (not two) chemicals including two which were claimed to explode when mixed.  Dawkins correctly described the process as less complicated than "creationists had stated".  

Hinton then abandons science and delivers a 300 word rant; [1] 

• "these wannabe scientists"
• "their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now" 
• "useless lives geared toward the pursuit of erudite babbling that serves no purpose" 
• "nonsense that would have no value to anyone even if it were true"
• "they hate what is good and those who do good. Logic and reason take second place to that hatred"  
• "true mark of a reprobate mind, and a very undeveloped one at that"

In conclusion, Hinton has presented a very poor argument.  He obviously did not even bother re-reading the text of The Blind Watchmaker to accurately represent the arguments of Dawkins.  Instead he relied on whatever he could construct from memory resulting in numerous flawed arguments.

Carl Marychurch 2005

[1]  Hinton, John,  Beetles, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=92 [December 2005]

[2]  Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin.