A novel creationist argument

Wow. Creationists can surprise you with a rare flash of imagination — like this argument that because you don't drool, god exists.

Ok, I have an Evolution Challenge for you. Make your mouth produce a bunch of spit, let it dribble down your face and time how long it is before you simply have to wipe it off. Go ahead; try it! I promise you it won't be very long. It's extremely uncomfortable to have it sit there.

Think about the babies in your life. Have you ever thought about the fact that they stop drooling after the first couple years of life? Have you ever imagined what life would be like if we didn't stop? Some, sadly, know what this is like. Children with cerebral palsy that don't stop drooling or those that begin drooling due to loss of facial muscle control know the horrors of this. Have you had to endure watching people stare at your parent or child as they experience this humiliating social embarrassment? Have you tried to alleviate the irritating sores that develop from skin being constantly wet? Have you tried to keep them in presentable clothing when saliva keeps staining their clothes?

What evolutionary advantage is there to developing the oral neuromuscular control at age 18-24 months? What if drooling, the default condition at birth, was the way our lives always are? How would you like to date, make love, run a business meeting, ride horses, grocery shop and take care of kids while drooling? How cool would you feel driving your fancy car down the road with sunglasses and drool? How would your wedding go with everyone trying to be discrete with their designer drool cloths or bibs?

The human body is designed to give us dignity. These specific designs and abilities point to a Creator who cares about even whether we are embarrassed or not. There's no evolutionary advantage to not drooling. It's the gift of dignity.

Gosh. Here's a phenomenon that the author himself notes is a consequence of loss of facial muscle control, that is uncomfortable, that is a social deficit, and that can lead to irritating sores (he also missed one, probably the most important one in an evolutionary context: it's wasteful and makes one more prone to dehydration), and then he says, "There's no evolutionary advantage to not drooling"? It's always nice when the creationists noisily refute themselves for me.

By the way, this silly claim comes from a source that is notable for its history of weird arguments, Bibleland Studios. They have a museum that features a dead cat, and they publish the legendary Jim Pinkoski, who argues that having two eyes refutes evolution, and also wrote the popularly obscure catch-phrase, "If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??". It's nice to see they still haven't lost their touch.