Cheri Fields
Have you ever heard people laughing at Christians for wasting their time on stuff that doesn’t matter? What difference does it make in my life today if my first forefather had a bellybutton or not? Is St. Peter going to ask me a question like this at the gates of heaven?
Of course not!
But we like to think about some of these things. People as diverse as Catholics to Ken Ham have titled whole books with this question about Adam’s tummy decor.
While researching this subject, I ran into a number of people making fun of us for even caring. Strangely, I also saw some unbelievers making fun of painters for giving Adam and Eve bellybuttons. They seem to think that if God made them as grownups, it’s obvious they couldn’t have had them.
I have the feeling they would have still laughed at the artists if they hadn’t given them navels…
So, what do modern scientific creationists think about this little issue?
•Creation Ministries International says, “I believe we really have an answer to that, and we can say, ‘No—Adam didn’t. Neither did Eve.’”
•The Institute for Creation Research says, “Now, did Adam have a navel? Probably not,”
•Ken Ham at Answers in Genesis is a little more careful. He says, “I think it is very possible they did not have or need bellybuttons.”
Here’s the two ways I knew of thinking about it:
•No Bellybutton thinking: bellybuttons are just leftovers from living inside our mom’s tummy. Since Adam and Eve didn’t have a mother, they wouldn’t have any “scars” from that time.
•Yes Bellybutton thinking: God made things mature and full functioning. If one of us were transported back to the Seventh Day of creation, we would have seen how beautiful and healthy everything was, but would have never guessed it had just begun.
I’ve heard this question since I was a girl and always figured they did have them. I was in the “mature and timeless” group. Plus, I sure didn’t think my bellybutton was just a “scar” from surviving inside my mom. It’s cool!
But if it’s just my opinion vs. Ken Ham’s and ICR’s, I wasn’t going to bother with it.
Then, I ran into this article by Ken Ham on growth rings in the first trees (also in Kids’ Answers, Vol. 1):
“I do believe that the trees had growth rings, for a couple of reasons. First, they were fully grown trees to start with, and most grown trees have growth rings. Second, the growth rings of many trees are actually part of the structure of the tree and support the tree. Some trees would need those growth rings to stand tall and produce fruit for Adam and Eve. So the growth rings were part of what made these trees perfect and very good, like the rest of God’s creation.”
Did you catch that? He believes they would have had rings because they aren’t just “scars” of having been smaller once.
This made me straighten up. Here at CS4K, we’ve just studied about what happens to us right after we’re born. The blood vessels that used to take nutrients from our mom through our bellybutton turns into supporting ligaments—
We need our bellybuttons to help hold our tummies in place.
People sometimes need these ligaments cut for surgical reasons and do just fine, but they survive without their appendix pretty well, too. It’s only been a few years since we’ve found the purpose for another ligament, so these could one day prove to be more useful than we yet realize.
If God probably created trees with “growth” rings to help them stand up, he probably created the first two people with bellybuttons to keep Adam’s six-pack and Eve’s slender figure intact!
So, does it matter if they had tummy decorations or not?
No, but it’s a scientific puzzle. And Creationists are real scientists.
What do you think?
The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29
