Some of the dumber skeptics dismiss the biblical Ark as being unable to hold the “millions” of insect species. For one thing, many species are merely a variety of a particular insect kind such as butterflies. Realizing that scientific fact decreases the amount of insects Noah would have had to consider had he needed to do so. Also, Noah would have been smart enough to just take eggs which would greatly lower the amount of cubic feet for insect “housing” had it actually been needed. See addendum #8.

Other, smarter, skeptics will actually read the Bible and think about the scriptural text. A few of them will also read some of the creationist thinking. They will admit that insects were not “flesh” as used in Genesis 6:19 and insects did not have the same type of life (breathing mechanism) as other creatures. So, realizing the “not enough space” argument is bogus, this brand of skeptic falls back on a claim that Genesis 7:21 says that “all flesh” (including that of creeping things) was destroyed. This gets us back to the classification of insects on the same level as other animals. (A little insight into this subject can be obtained from my article “Dragonfly’s Demise” and addendum #1 below.)

The most honest skeptics will argue that insects lacked the ability to survive a worldwide flood.

These more thoughtful scoffers point out that most insects could not survive for a year on floating debris. It’s sad that they are so devoted to attempting to debunk the Bible they close their minds to thinking about how it could have actually happened.

It would not be anti-biblical to allow for some species to not have survived the flood or to have gone extinct shortly thereafter. But, let’s think about the survival of insects.

Some could have survived for long periods in the air streams. This is not the ultimate survival technique, but it could have been helpful initially and the very concept is one that has not been studied extensively.

Many insects could have survived on floating vegetation and animal carcasses. TalkOrigins, the Internet arsenal for evolutionists, claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH511.html) that insects that feed on “animal corpses” would not have survived the Flood. That argument is bogus since it is a well known fact that a corpse floats and there would have been untold numbers of corpses after the Flood. Enough said on that subject.

The same webpage disputes the “vegetation mats” idea. In a short list of insects that could not survive a flood, TalkOrignis lists “dry wood” (sic) termites. I could use evolution “just-so stories” against them, but will just provide some scientific facts and let the reader consider the possibility of drywood termites surviving the Flood.

Can wood be absolutely moisture free? Referring to drywood termites we find, “Unlike the subterranean termite, they do not require any contact with the soil. They live in un decayed wood with a low moisture content.” (http://www.doyourownpestcontrol.com/termites/wood_destroying_insects.htm)

“Drywood termite colonies develop slowly. The entire colony may take five years or more to mature. Limited space and resources prevent them from even attempting the rapid growth of subterranean colonies.”
(http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/urban/termites/c_cavifrons.htm)

Evolutionists like to describe the wonderful ability of animals to adapt to a new environment. I prefer Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo’s terminology. Dr. Mastropaolo says, “God designed the DNA (and other genetic material) to yield a population with vast variation for each life form. Each individual carries the blueprint for the whole population so that if even one breeding pair survives, the whole population may be reconstituted. It does not matter whether conditions favor big dogs for several decades, then small dogs for several decades, then repeated in any pattern whatsoever, because every dog carries the plan for the entire population.”

Another pertinent scientific fact is that “Hundreds of insect species spend much of their time underwater, where food may be more plentiful.” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080730155354.htm)