Open Forums for ExChristian.Net [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Science vs Religion > Irreducibly grotesque organisms

Posted by: ficino Dec 2 2004, 05:44 AM

Thanks to Agagooga over on the Testimonies threads, who posted this link to a piece on Irreducibly Grotesque organisms:

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/

In case anyone gets confused by the subtle sarcasm with which this linked article drips, it is a parody of Intelligent Design arguments. Check it out and decide what you think, guys.

Posted by: ficino Dec 3 2004, 09:03 AM

Hey, everyone! I'm a little surprised no one had a comment on the material on this link. Maybe everyone knows of these parasitical species already. To me the link seemed important because proponents of Intelligent Design have to explain why ID accounts for organisms like worms that live by burrowing into other living creatures and eating them from the inside. I should think that, for a fundamentalist Christian, these cases should serve as counterexamples against the refinement of ID that is the traditional Genesis account of creation. It seems to me a Christian has to hold some things that are dodgy, to say the least, i.e. either
a. God wanted parasites and other horrible organisms from before the Fall; when He pronounced His creation "good," it was already "red in tooth and claw" - (so Adam and Eve were already marked out as meat for predatory and parasitical organisms). Consequence: God is not merciful/good, His creation isn't good, by any understandable meaning of "good"
or
b. predation and parasitism came into the world after the Fall as part of the curse. That entails a huge, second act on the part of God, either "deformation" of thousands of species, or else creation of a bunch of species that didn't exist before the Fall (the tsetse fly and so on). Evidence that God did a massive biological intervention after the Fall: nothing but inferences from a) God makes the serpent crawl on his belly

the ground will no longer yield its fruit without Adam's labor, etc. This is very weak scriptural evidence.
c. predation and parasitism came into the world after the flood. I don't know if any Christian would hold this, since again it presumes a new act of creating lots of species, and the bible doesn't tell us about that. What it does say would seem to entail that Noah took a mommy and daddy tsetse fly and similar pairs of EVERY other parasitical organism onto the ark. No wonder the guy invented wine and got drunk.

C.S. Lewis' stuff on Animal Pain is particularly bad.

Are there Christian arguments that preserve ID and give a BETTER explanation for parasites and predators than evolutionary theory?

Posted by: tete de merde Dec 3 2004, 09:55 PM

WinAce is a completely brilliant kid - I think he's 19 - who has cystic fibrosis. He's not expected to live to see 25, but he has an incredible attitude focused on 'living in the now.'

He's the ultimate rebuttal for all those times a Christian has openly questioned the atheist's ability to cope without God.

Posted by: aminor7 Dec 4 2004, 01:25 AM

QUOTE

In case anyone gets confused by the subtle sarcasm with which this linked article drips, it is a parody of Intelligent Design arguments. Check it out and decide what you think, guys.

I can appreciate the sarcasm in its own right, but I think it eventually undermines, and not underscores, the author's point. I can picture many creationists reading this as supporting evidence. The sarcasm is timely and esoteric. Think about it: if someone read that article in 100 years, would they appreciate the sarcasm, or see it as a misguided attempt at substantiating creationism? You only need a majority to enact policy, and if the majority would use this document counter to its intent, then the author failed in his purpose, if that purpose were to help discredit creationism in the eyes of the public. People often find the truth (not to mention truth supported by highly academic or special knowledge) hard enough to digest without encapsulating it in such irony.
I've stared aghast at some ID, creationism, or whatnot, writings and wondered if the author were mad, ignorant, or ironic.

Posted by: aminor7 Dec 4 2004, 01:42 AM

QUOTE

Dr. Behe (begrudgingly) puts forth a rock-solid scriptural case that the God of the Bible could not have created these flowers. While the other organisms listed here have dramatic precedent in the plagues, devastations, etc. of both Old and New Testaments, a flower specifically designed to promote kinky, cross-species sex is out of the question. He hypothesizes that this is the result of Satan's diabolically perverted influence on the origin of species.

Oh but that is funny.

Posted by: ficino Dec 30 2004, 06:35 AM

QUOTE (ficino @ Dec 3 2004, 09:03 AM)

b. predation and parasitism came into the world after the Fall as part of the curse. That entails a huge, second act on the part of God, either "deformation" of thousands of species, or else creation of a bunch of species that didn't exist before the Fall (the tsetse fly and so on). Evidence that God did a massive biological intervention after the Fall: nothing but inferences from a) God makes the serpent crawl on his belly

Hey, M-G. On the other posting I was trying to think of ways of accounting for parasitical species and the like within a Christian, ID framework. Your response sounds like my hypothetical "b" or "c", more like "b," i.e. to posit a kind of degernation after the fall.

In many situations, I think one can come up with multiple explanations that are consistent with the phenomenon to be explained and with a literal reading of scripture. So I don't know if I can refute the "degeneration" argument. My reaction, though, is A. if species degenerate by a sort of devolution, why not allow that incremental change is the way species originate and adapt to environments; i.e. why not allow evolution as the mechanism, even if God guides evolution? Or B. if God created new, parasitical species or modified existing species by direct action, as He is represented as doing with the serpent, why bring about so much animal pain? I know "the whole creation groans in travail," etc. so maybe that verse covers possibility B. For me, though, that raises the "mean God" problem and posits a huge intervention in species that we hear nothing of.

By the way, do you have gerbils at home? Inquiring animal lovers demand to know!

cheers

Posted by: Reach Dec 30 2004, 06:46 AM

QUOTE (aminor7 @ Dec 4 2004, 01:25 AM)

QUOTE (ficino @ Dec 2 2004, 05:44 AM)

In case anyone gets confused by the subtle sarcasm with which this linked article drips, it is a parody of Intelligent Design arguments. Check it out and decide what you think, guys.

Thanks, Ficino, for a fascinating link.

I agree, Aminor7. As you live in linguistically rich Asia you are certainly aware of the further difficulty experienced trying to decipher or identify sarcasm when one is reading English as a second or third language. Add in the cultural difficulties on top of that. I believe we undermine our own arguments by using sarcasm and limit the clear understanding of our words to "our own kind." It need not be so.

As an editor, I RARELY use sarcasm, be it in writing or speech, and the reasons you mentioned are exactly why I make that my choice.

Posted by: WinAce Dec 30 2004, 07:10 AM

QUOTE (tete de merde @ Dec 4 2004, 12:55 AM)

WinAce is a completely brilliant kid - I think he's 19...

Turned 20 two days after your post. By the way, do I know you? I haven't let the Internet at large in on that little secret, just yet. (I won't insist you edit it out, because I'm likely going public with it soon enough anyway.)

Thanks, everyone, for the accolades on that spoof. As a side note, some may find http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35988 ("Proof of intelligent design") entertaining, in which my parody to that effect fooled a bunch of people, apparently including a biologist. Hilarity ensued as I put on my best creationist impression and played along instead of revealing the gag.

Posted by: ficino Dec 30 2004, 07:35 AM

Dear WinAce, I am glad to "meet" the author of that erudite spoof. Over on Debating with Christians, under the thread OBITUARY, I referred Mad_Gerbil to your essay and tried to discuss his reply that species degenerated after the Fall. You might be interested in contributing to that thread.

My cat loves your avatar!

Posted by: non conformist Dec 30 2004, 09:49 AM

That was great, WinAce

Thanks for that ficino! I LOVE the sarcasm! Whether or not the reader gets it is what makes it great. Can you imagine fundies using this as "proof" of intelligent design? How dumb would they look to other fundies who actually get sarcasm! Hats off to you, kid

I never realized how full Noah's hands were when the Almighty gave him the little assignment of cargoing all living creatures into the floating box. This really makes you think. "Our God is an Awesome God..."

Posted by: Messi Dec 30 2004, 02:33 PM

Hi Winace. I'm 15 and lives with cerebal palsy and deafness. It was awfully brave of you to make that ID pparody. I don't know much about debating let alone ID....

Posted by: WinAce Jan 15 2005, 09:41 PM

How was that brave? It's not like some sarcasm-hating fundamentalist is gonna find my home address and shoot me.

I'll take a pass on the offer to contribute on that thread, though. Different priorities nowadays, and all that....

Posted by: gssq Jan 16 2005, 10:14 AM

Actually ID just commits one to deism at most. I don't see why Christians like ID so much.

Posted by: AggieNostic Jan 16 2005, 12:59 PM

QUOTE (gssq @ Jan 16 2005, 02:14 PM)

Actually ID just commits one to deism at most. I don't see why Christians like ID so much.

Because they are narrow-minded. In their arrogance/ignorance, they assume that any God which might exist is the deity of the Christian religion. This is the same presumption that Pascal had when he devised his infamous Wager.

Posted by: Amethyst_Moonstar Jan 17 2005, 04:51 AM

QUOTE

To me the link seemed important because proponents of Intelligent Design have to explain why ID accounts for organisms like worms that live by burrowing into other living creatures and eating them from the inside.

I think most moderate/mainstream Christians would simply shrug and say that "there is a reason for everything," no matter how weird, or that "God works in mysterious ways". I've been hearing those cliche's over and over again regarding the tsunami. They say that because they've never actually learned the science behind it all. It becomes an easy way out.

Posted by: gssq Jan 17 2005, 05:14 AM

Nature has an explanation for everything too, no matter how weird, and definitely it works in mysterious ways

Posted by: Reach Jan 17 2005, 05:23 AM

QUOTE (gssq @ Jan 17 2005, 05:14 AM)

...works in mysterious ways

Methinks I've heard that somewhere before... Like Amethyst Moonstar, I believe that line is often a cheap excuse, at best, and an outright deception, at worst, for the fact that no time has been given to study, nor much thought to the subject at hand.

Welcome, gssq! Good to have you with us.

Posted by: Amethyst_Moonstar Jan 17 2005, 02:44 PM

QUOTE

Nature has an explanation for everything too, no matter how weird, and definitely it works in mysterious ways

Good point, but at least it's science. Didn't all religions evolve from nature worship?

Posted by: DoubleDee Jan 18 2005, 04:21 PM

I Love Sushi!! er um... I mean sarcasm.

Posted by: gssq Jan 18 2005, 05:04 PM

Bah urban legends!

Posted by: Amethyst_Moonstar Jan 19 2005, 02:53 PM

I like sushi myself, but...ew. And I couldn't even read the tiny print.