terrestrial invertebrates
were they on the ark?
Were terrestrial invertebrates on the ark?
Creationists have debated and discussed which animals were included on the Ark for centuries. At the 2025 Origins conference held in Dayton, TN, (on the 100th anniversary of the Scopes Monkey Trial), I gave a short presentation on the question of whether terrestrial invertebrates would have been included on the Ark, to members of the Creation Biology, Geology, and Theology Societies. I'm posting the slides with brief text commentary here, as it is unlikely that I'll develop this into a paper anytime soon. The official abstract for the presentation will be published in the 2026 volume of the New Creation Journal.
Slide 1/28
A review of published arguments pro and con, and presentation of a new tool to test the question.
Slide 2/28
Slide 3/28
This recent secular paper is one of the silliest responses to creation science. The author deliberately ignores most of what has been discussed in creation science (and most of what is actually stated in the Flood narrative in Genesis) in order to create a straw man argument.
Slide 4/28
A look at what the Genesis narrative actually states, with significant phrases highlighted. Note, the entire narrative needs to be read in context.
Slide 5/28
Repetition in Scripture is often for emphasis. This suggests that the concept of only two of every unclean kind being taken on the Ark is important.
Slide 6/28
The ethnozoological terminology used in Genesis is a guide, but terms can be modified. Here, 'creeping things' could conceivably include terrestrial invertebrates. But as will be seen in the next slide, a modifying phrase could change that.
Slide 7/28
The noted trait, 'nostrils', may modify the ethnozoological category of 'creeping things'.
Slide 8/28
Historically, some creationists suggested that larger flying insects may have been included on the Ark.
Slide 9/28
Similar to issues with modern skeptics, early Flood narrative critics often embraced hyperbolic fallacies.
Slide 10/28
Jones' 1973 CRSQ paper is the oldest 'modern creationist' attempt to tackle this question, that I have found. It covered several arguments, but was not exhaustive.
This paper influenced a number of later texts, including Woodmorappe's 2003 Ark feasibility study.
Slide 11/28
Slide 12/28
Slide 13/28
This is a new argument, where the Biblical concept of the 'unclean kind' is paired with biostratigraphy to test the question of whether terrestrial invertebrates survived the Flood either inside or outside the Ark.
Slide 14/28
It is possible that some invertebrate families encompass more than one baraminic kind, but I suspect that in most cases the baraminic kind is at or higher than the family level.
Slide 15/28
Multiple branches within the same family surviving the Flood (being found on both sides of the proposed Flood boundary), suggest that the family survived the Flood outside the Ark.
Slide 16/28
If multiple branches are found only above the proposed Flood boundary, then we are not able to presume survival outside or inside the Ark. It is only with multiple branches found both below and above the boundary that we have evidence for a position.
Slide 17/28
There are, of course, many, many more aquatic invertebrates that survived the Flood outside the Ark.
Slide 18/28
Here we have five families with multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Of course, this is not to say that there were no invertebrates (especially parasites) inside the Ark. We are simply focused here on the question of whether invertebrates were necessarily included in the categories mentioned in the Flood narrative.
Slide 19/28
Here we have two families with multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Branches can be genera (as seen here), subfamilies, or species-groups. They could technically be different species within the same genus, but I have not found any branches of that nature.
Slide 20/28
Here is one family with multiple boundary-crossing (subfamily) branches.
Slide 21/28
Thirty beetle families demonstrate multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Slide 22/28
Six neuropteran families show multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Slide 23/28
One true bug family (the toad bugs) demonstrates multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Interestingly, both genera are found in Cretaceous Asian amber deposits, while today one genus lives only in Asia, and the other genus lives only in North America.
Slide 24/28
Three families demonstrate multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Slide 25/28
Four families demonstrate multiple boundary-crossing branches.
Slide 26/28
Overall, I believe the different arguments give over the years supports the Flood survival of terrestrial invertebrates outside the Ark.
There are still questions to be answered, but those would likely require the serious consideration of theologians working directly with creation biologists who are well-versed in organismal biology.
Slide 27/28
Placing the Flood boundary at the Plio-Pleistocene would certainly increase the number of invertebrate genera within familial kinds. But, it also increases the number of vertebrate genera (rhinos, kangaroos, you name it). That is simply untenable for a Biblical Flood model.
Slide 28/28
I expect to see more boundary-crossing branches appear as paleontologists discover more 'living fossil' invertebrates.
Creationists should keep in mind, however, that many modern insect families did not appear until after the Flood, as part of post-Flood diversification from pre-Flood families that are no longer extant.
