I need to counter argue this point with a view on Creationism that would go against his view. Any ideas and suggestions?
What are arguments for Creationism and an Intelligent Designer?
Let's see . . . I've got three.
How about this one. God punished Eve for eating from the tree of wisdom by giving her flaws that she did not have otherwise, like hunger, self-awareness (that she was naked), and the pain of childbirth. This illustrates that a creator may choose to introduce flaws for his own purpose, be it revenge, experimentation, or ???, and not necessarily to the advantage of the recipient.
Here's another possiblity. Stay with me on this. Using your example, perhaps the creator is not primarily interested in creating the "Panda", but in creating the panda's thumb. The Panda is simply the vessel to support the creation. It is human hubris to assume that the panda is the final creation, not the thumb. If this were true, the case for creationism is stronger than the case for evolution.
Finally, flaws inherently point to creationism. It is flaws, not perfection, that create individuality, innovation, and variation. Flaws are by definition squelched by evolution, yet they exist. This would argue that a creator intentionally introduced them to assure diversity and growth even in an relatively static environment. After all, most of mankinds growth of late is caused by the desire to exceed one's limitations (flaws), not to celebrate one's perfections.
Reply:The biggest fatuosity about ID is that they huff and puff about a "designer", and then say "but we're carefully not saying what it is". If you want to have a theory, you have to postulate some mechanism or agency. Which can then be evaluated for its logical appeal.
Reply:An intelligent designer may create things just because they are beautiful. Look at all the myriad extraordinary colours of tropical fish. What purpose does it serve? The fact that there are anomalies %26amp; things that don't make sense (like the platypus!) are the most convincing proof of God, and proof that it couldn't have been evolution or these weird things would have been weeded out or never would have existed.
God was an artist %26amp; had a sense of humour.
I'm an artist. I take a blank canvas %26amp; fill it with my vision. It may not be perfect but it is my expression, of love, of beauty. A canvas can not fill itself. It would sit there empty forever until someone decides to put paint on it. So God created the world.
Look at the beauty of flowers, pandas, trees, fish. Look at the wonder %26amp; variety of nature. What explanation, other than God, could you find for these extraordinary things? They are works of art. They are miraculous. They didn't happen by accident. Someone (some great being) put them here.
Reply:As Gould states it, the question is essentially this: if biological life really was designed by some sort of transcendent divine entity, why does it seem so haphazard and inelegant? Is God really so incompetent?
There is no good answer to this question. You can say that yes, God did design things in haphazard and roundabout ways, in order to test humankind's faith in Him. This is similar to supposing that God (or Satan) buried a bunch of dinosaur bones in the ground -- it puts you on the margins of society, well beyond the pale of rational thought, as it were. Or you can take a slighly different tack, and say that God's design really is the best possible one, and scientists like Gould are incapable of discerning the divine plan in its entirety. Perhaps pandas have a distinct sort of thumb from other thumb-having mammals because this keeps something else, something that we don't know about, in balance. This is more plausible, but it is still a weak case.
The standard Creationist approach to criticisms of this sort is to ignore them. Intelligent Design has only one decent argument: irreducible complexity. Most people choose to focus on that. Even evolutionary biologists working at the very cutting edge of science still can't perfectly explain some organs or sets of organs, like the immune system, in a way convincing enough to establish a consensus of their peers. Most people think that they eventually will -- but it's at least arguable.
Reply:YOu can't counter it. Creationism has no body of evidence with to argue with. What it does create is a very, very fallacious argument.
"Who created the world"?
"God. The bible tells me so".
"And what evidence is there of God"?
"The Bible, He wrote it".
Fallacious argument.
Reply:First off, since the beginning the creation has been degrading ... (see Romans 8:20-21) Over many centuries mutations are making certain structures less %26amp; less effective.
However, floral reproduction is VERY effective, in that it uses insects %26amp; birds to spread pollen, to eat fruit to spread seeds etcetera. Moreover, UV spectrum from flower petal attract insects to petals and lure them by nectar, which the specially designed proboscis (nose suction device) of insects allows them to draw in nectar. There are clever trap devices like the Venus fly trap %26amp; such that contain amazing designs.
No, the meticulous structures of flowers speak of highly successful design, not ineffective parts of nature!
As for panda thumbs and teeth, they are specially adept for holding and consuming the leaves of bamboo.
See this quote from the Smithsonian National Zoological Park website:
"Giant pandas—and red pandas—have a special adaptation to help them grasp bamboo stems, or culms. An oversized wrist bone serves as thumb, which pandas use to hold bamboo against their palm so they can manipulate a stalk of bamboo and strip the branches and leaves with their teeth to create a bundle of leaves. Then, they use the pseudo thumb and forepaw to hold the bundle and eat from it in smaller bites. They are also able to manipulate the culm to strip the exterior to get at the palatable pith. "
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/GiantP...
No, they structures are NOT ineffective; in fact they argue for a DESIGNER who intelligently placed the information into their DNA.
Reply:Just because he hasn't figured it out, doesn't mean that there isn't a purpose for it.
It amazes me that people still defend evolution. It was a reasonable theory in the ignorance of the Victorian era, but has since been shown to be HIGHLY implausible. You'll never persuade an evolution "true believer".
No comments:
Post a Comment