God and Evolution

I've got tons of fishing magazines at home; they're laying everywhere. This one is entitled In-Fisherman and it is one of the best fishing magazines around. It's very helpful in educating you about fishing--fresh-water fishing in particular. But they have these short sections in the beginning--snippets, side-bar type things. This one is entitled "New View of Eye-Spots." It talks about how they are reassessing why these creatures have eye-spots. The purpose for eye-spots, according to evolutionary theory, is to trick the larger fish into attacking the eye-spot and away from the vulnerable spot on the fish in order to give the shad a chance to get away. But now there's a case of a shad, which is a small bait fish that larger fish eat, that has an eye-spot right in the middle of its body, which seems to be the most vulnerable spot. Why would they have an eye-spot there if the purpose of an eye-spot is to provide a protective advantage for the shad?

There's a comment made in the article, "The spots on the sides of shad may have evolved as a way to help the species maintain formation while schooling or spawning and not for defense against predators." Here's another case where you have the evolution language mixed with design language. It "may have evolved as a way to help." In other words, there is a purpose for this and that's to help schooling fish. It's so interesting when one explanation based on evolution doesn't work and they try to come up with another explanation, but both of these explanations imply design and purpose.

I then began reading a book called Big Bass Magic . This author is quite a conservationist, and I'm glad for that. He advocates catch and release, which is big among bass fishermen because we catch our fish for the sport of it and then let them go unharmed. Of course, then they can return to their natural habitat, spawn and enjoy a long life there and maybe be caught again, so we have a resource that is maintained.

The author writes this unusual paragraph. Listen carefully to the words: "Generally, today's fish management has its roots in the agencies and programs of the forties. The purpose at that time was to determine how to exploit what was considered the lavishly over-abundant fish resource."

Let me pause for a moment. He used the word "purpose." Who has the purpose? Fish management people, right? "The purpose at the time was to determine how to better exploit what was considered the lavishly over-abundant fish resource."

He continues, "We often still find that attitude in fish management today, and it is typified by the much publicized statement that any fish that grows up, dies of old age and is never caught is a wasted resource. Well, that presumes that in nature no purpose is served by the complete life of that fish, and it is too much for me to take when that is denied. Nature would not allow a bass, for instance, to reach ten pounds if a bass that size served no purpose in the balance of the ecosystem."

If you are an evolutionist, you are not a theist in the sense that your theism has anything to do with the real world.

He's saying, look, older bass, bigger bass, the ones that people catch and hang on their wall really serve a purpose in the ecosystem. Notice how he used the word purpose to describe the intent of fishery management and then he used the word purpose to describe the intent of nature. Now, what the heck is that? Nature is not a person, therefore nature cannot have intent. Only agents have intents. Nature doesn't. Nature is just a general way of describing the accident of cause and effect in a naturalistic system. So to say that nature has a purpose that is served by the complete life of the fish in the ecosystem is to say something that is nonsense. It's ironic that it is said so glibly without a blush by a man who is deeply committed to evolution.

Now, I think that his gut-level observation is accurate. I think it seems clear that there is some purpose for the full life span of different species, but we can only make a comment like that if there is someone behind the scenes that is purposing, such that the things that we see have purposes. I think it is obvious there is a designer and that's why it is very easy for this man to talk about the purpose of individuals in wildlife management in the same breath as talking about the purpose of nature. It appears that both nature and wildlife management individuals are people that purpose. I think he is right, but nature is not like a mother nature that is to be worshipped. What we call nature is really the purposes of God. It is so obvious that even this evolutionist can't speak in such a way as to avoid that conclusion, which goes to make another point.

If you are an evolutionist, you are not a theist in the sense that your theism has anything to do with the real world. If you want to believe in God and believe in evolution, fine, go ahead and do that, but don't act like your belief in God has anything to do with the real world. It doesn't. Your belief about the real world is evolution, and that means time and chance. If you believe that God has something to do with the real world, then you can't be an evolutionist because evolution is run by chance, not by God, by definition.

Secondly, if you are an evolutionist, then please be honest with yourself and everyone else and abandon this Mother Nature language and all of this purpose talk that you invariably allow to be smuggled into your language when talking about the natural realm. You are rationally obliged, if you want to be intellectually honest, to refer to the rest of the time/space continuum world in entirely chance terms. No more Mother Nature language. No more purpose language. No more design language. Nothing.

I think if you consistently talk in a way that fits your basic world view you will see how ridiculous that world ends up being. It becomes untenable. It can't be held because the world is obviously designed. Things obviously fit into ecosystems with a particular purpose. They obviously have their place. Bodies are obviously artifacts. Mouths were made for eating. Hands were made for grasping. Legs were made for walking. They don't just happen to do that because they accidentally formed that way through the forces of nature acting on mindless matter. That, by the way, is the thing that gives human beings purpose. Not only are their bodies purposeful but their lives are purposeful as well.

Why? There is an intelligent Creator who is behind everything. A Creator we see quite obviously, as Paul says in the book of Romans, and as you say consistently every time you use the words Mother Nature.

"If there were evolution, my dog would evolve to do some useful purpose, such as taking the trash out to the curb. The cats would figure out how to use the can opener by now AND humans would evolve so that we could scratch our own backs." -- Tourist Guy

So you never had a dog. Ever camped and hunted in the trackless wilderness with a dog? Ever had one wake you up with your neighbor's house on fire. Come to think of it, when you can smell as well as a dog maybe you could make yourself useful too. In fact there may well be dogs whose intellectual abilities greatly exceed your own judging by your thoroughly mistaken take on evolution.

Cats have human slaves for the purpose of opening cans of cat food. Then again lets see you catch rats and mice with the same efficiency as the common house cat.

As for the back scratching ability you have really demonstrated your mental failing. Man is the ultimate tool maker and user. We designed back scratchers eons ago. There is no selection pressure to alter us physically in that direction.

"If animals want to live, why haven't they changed to something that can't be eaten?" -- Concerned About Polititcs

Some have but not because they "wanted" to live. Perhaps you should try "eating" a Cape Buffalo some time. Just walk up to it and start gnawing. If you survive the attempt perhaps you would care to record your revised theory of evolution. Should you fail to survive you will be immortalized as a recipient of the "Darwin Award" granted to those who have done mankind a great service by removing their defects from the gene pool.

Ah, forgive me I forgot the

/sarcasm
tag.

Maybe you could evolve a sense of humor, and yes I have a dog, cats and a mate (as per Genesis) that scratches my back.

"Maybe you could evolve a sense of humor, and yes I have a dog, cats and a mate (as per Genesis) that scratches my back." -- Tourist Guy

Your cute remarks are simply evidence of the disdain you have for science. I was doing you a service by pointing out that your attempt at humor was wide of the mark.

Try learning science from the scientists instead of the crackpot fringe and you will be able at least to avoid the common mistakes that characterize your posts.

(P.S. This is sound advice, not a personal attack.)

More fun Einstein Quotes:

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being." [Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann]

If evolution were correct, wouldn't we have grown out of that by now?

Because minerals are still available in abundance.

What I can't understand is if evolution is correct why are there still religions? Why haven't we grown out of that decidedly primative practice?

EBUCK

Actually the rates of the earth's spin makes the moon's creation about 4.5 billion years ago. One can read the jounals and duplicate the computation.

The Sahara decreased in size during the 1980s.

Ice cores do not have uniform thicknesses each year.

There are creosote clusters with ages more that 12,000 years by counting growth rings.

Einstein was always one of my favorite people. Years ago I gave my three year old nephew a large portrait of Einstein which his very religious parents hung in his room. It had to be removed because the little fellow didn't care to have "God" staring at him from across the room in the dark.

Yes, a superficial, contextual reading of the statement would lead one to that conclusion and history of science folks generally come down there. I have it on good authority that Einstein knew God much better than Heisenberg and God takes full advantage of quantum mechanics. The dice are loaded my friend.

"I have it on good authority that Einstein knew God much better than Heisenberg and God takes full advantage of quantum mechanics. The dice are loaded my friend." -- WriteOn

Neither man knew God at all. They each knew some physics (probably the best insight into the mind of God) and as far as anyone can tell the game is not rigged.

Einstein: "No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

Clearly he did know God, but not nearly well enough. It's the wonder and beauty of God that he can work through even the brilliantly ignorant (and manipulate the apparently random), calling to scientists through their science and revealing his truths to them. Einstein clearly had the sense of wonder that is attendant with nearness to God, as you'd expect at the theoretical limits of knowledge. He couldn't have come any closer without a direct appeal to Grace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.