How did vultures, roadrunners and horny lizards obtain their uniquely deserted-adapted traits? In my most recent video I review one answer provided by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) titled “Christ’s Creativity in Canyon Critters.” Johnson, who holds a law degree and a theology degree, frequently writes about biology for ICR.
The article begins by praising the marvelous traits and behaviors of Grand Canyon animals, attributing their survival to the providential provisioning of Jesus Christ rather than to impersonal luck or evolution. Johnson highlights several examples of desert animals with specific abilities that allow them to thrive in severe environments. This brings us to the core question: how did Jesus make animals with adaptations for life in the Grand Canyon when neither the Grand Canyon or the characteristics in this organisms existed in the original perfect creation according to Young Earth creationists?
Johnson provides some examples he believes supports his argument for created adaptations. He mentions turkey vultures, which have digestive systems built to handle dead flesh, and horned lizards, which can squirt blood from their eyes as a defensive measure. He also talks about roadrunners, which know exactly where to strike to kill venomous rattlesnakes. These adaptive features are undoubtedly impressive, but they raise an important question: if the original creation had no death and extreme environments, as Young Earth creationists believe, how did these animals come to have such characteristics?
Johnson argues that these adaptations are not due to luck (his misunderstanding of evolutionary processes) but to God’s design. For instance, vultures have exceptional eyesight and skills for finding and consuming dead flesh without getting sick. Their stomachs can digest rotten material full of bacteria, which is a fantastic adaptation. However, Johnson implies that such adaptations couldn’t have evolved through natural processes thus dismissing the role of natural selection.
The horned lizard’s defense mechanism of squirting blood from its eyes is another example Johnson uses to illustrate his point. Again he suggests that this isn’t something the lizards luckily evolved but rather a trait they were designed to have. However, this description closely aligns with the process of natural selection, where variations within a population lead to advantageous traits being passed down through generations.
Roadrunners also feature in Johnson’s argument. These birds have adapted to kill rattlesnakes, a skill that goes beyond mere defense. By successfully killing and consuming rattlesnakes, roadrunners gain significant advantages in terms of survival and reproduction. This skill is reinforced through, again, what appears to be natural selection, as those with better abilities to kill rattlesnakes survive and pass on their traits.
Johnson also mentions other desert-adapted animals, like black-tailed jackrabbits with heat-radiating ears, tarantula hawk wasps, and kangaroo rats with water-conserving physiology. These examples highlight incredible adaptations but also raise questions about their origins. If these traits weren’t necessary in the original creation, how did they develop?
To explain these adaptations, Johnson refers to ICR’s model called continuous environmental tracking, which contrasts with natural selection. According to this model, organisms track environmental conditions and self-adjust their traits for purposeful results. However, this concept seems to lack empirical support and remains more of an idea than a scientifically validated theory.
So, Johnson’s article claims that the adaptations seen in desert animals are due to divine design rather than evolutionary processes. However, these arguments often misunderstand or misrepresent natural selection and evolutionary biology. The continuous environmental tracking model proposed by ICR remains murky with no obvious mechanism and thus far unsupported by scientific evidence.
Naturalis Historia 
Comments or Questions?