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.

Your "argument" is as stupid as saying we should have evolved past the point of having bodies composed of atoms. In fact I feel defiled even having alleuded to the possibility that it might be intelligent enough to be called an argument. Your stupid response completely ignores one of the two purposes of digestion: replacement materials (the other being energy creation).

If all else fails, attack the messanger.

God created a good design, no? It eats what it needs to rebuild what God has created from the earth. It takes in the substances it was created from.
If your man made tire blows, the hole is replaced with another piece of rubber, right?
Is God great, or what?

Why? Shouldn't they have steel armored shells by now? Built in force fields? Lazer beam eyes?Why haven't they evolved through natural selection by now?

Have you ever been used as an argument for drug prohibition because you sound like you're using some really bad smack. Let's see steel shells.... how would those grow naturally? The body cannot process the materials to make steel because steel is an artificially made alloy! Let's see you grow a furnace inside your body capable of melting the components of steel to create it.

Force fields? How would you suggest that happen? The body be able to spontaneously generate a new gravitational field that is able to bend any blade before it hits the flesh? Lasers (It's laser, not lazer; light amplification by stimulated emition of radiation)? Oh goody! Let's fry the f#$%ing irii and corneas of the animal in "self-defense!" Yeah like that animal would really survive if it actually evolved something that bizarre.....

But what can you expect from someone that thinks that eating is a vestigial trait....

capitalism works.

Capitalism is Biblical doctrine. Christ tells us to work for our goods.
"If a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat."
"Feed a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
Taking care of yourself is important. You agree with the Bible, then?

Force fields? How would you suggest that happen?

Evolution. Evolving to meet the creatures needs. Isn't that the "theory?" Isn't that your belief? A primortal blob morphs into man? LOL. Like the power rangers?

Does Christ also agree with 20% interest rates on cash advances and a banking system built on high interest loans to anyone who doesn't have a long and pristine credit history? Does Christ believe that the market should be the only thing that determines whether something should be sold or not? You see, capitalists believe that cloning, genetic engineering and stuff like that have no ethical issues. We believe that genetically engineered products should be availible and we don't think there is any reason to oppose human cloning.

Evolution. Evolving to meet the creatures needs. Isn't that the "theory?" Isn't that your belief? A primortal blob morphs into man? LOL. Like the power rangers?

Only in your little world that's evolution. How can a piece of machinery become a part of a species? Go ahead, explain to me how an organic body can hold a small nuclear reactor capable of powering such a system? Tell me how you can create a creature that is able to bend gravity at will. Primortial blobs are still organic, there is the possibility that we could be related to them. However only someone as stupid as you would think that a piece of tank-mounted energy weapon artillery could become a natural part of a species.

You see, capitalists believe that cloning, genetic engineering and stuff like that have no ethical issues. We believe that genetically engineered products should be availible and we don't think there is any reason to oppose human cloning.

Not all capatalists. Just the liberal ones.

Only in your little world that's evolution. How can a piece of machinery become a part of a species?

I have no idea. Ask Darwin. It's his theory.
Pieces of stuff sticking together to form man. If they can do that at ramdom, why not create anthing at random? The sky is the limit. Just start mixing stuff! LOL!
You Darwinites crack me up.

Evolution. Evolving to meet the creatures needs. Isn't that the "theory?"

No. The theory is that traits that allow an organism to better survive than organisms without such a trait will be more likely to reproduce and thus pass that trait on to successive generations. It does not predict that any specific trait will come about, and it certainly does not predict that an organism will somehow be able to "grow metal" or produce lasers from any part of its body. It isn't about an organism somehow changing to fit its environment, it's about an organism changing and having those changes give it a better chance of survival in its envirionment.

Your apparent knowledge of evolution is more bizarre than that found in comic books or bad sci-fi.

Ask Darwin. It's his theory.

Neither Darwin's theory nor any theories based on his theory of evolution predict that a population of organisms will, over time, be able to produce inorganic materials as a part of their biological anatomy. You are either lying or you are ignorant of the theory. In the case of the former, you are merely dishonest and are a discredit to creationism. In the case of the latter, you come off as willfully stupid, because you are attacking the theory for things that it does not predict despite people who actually have studied the theory telling you as much. Do not criticize evolution unless you actually know what you are talking about.

It isn't about an organism somehow changing to fit its environment, it's about an organism changing and having those changes give it a better chance of survival in its envirionment.

That's my point. If animals want to live, why haven't they changed to something that can't be eaten? It's been food since all creation! They've had lots of time. What's the hold up? Wrong primortal mix? Forgot to add sugar? LOL

Your apparent knowledge of evolution is more bizarre than that found in comic books or bad sci-fi.

*sigh*. Attack the messanger-again.

Do not criticize evolution unless you actually know what you are talking about.

Don't attack creationism unless you know what you're talking about.
If you claim there's no proof God created man in his image, show me the proof that primortal ooze created man. Who was there? Where are the links? Where's the changing DNA? Documents? Do you have anything that proves anything you say?
Your scientists have dinosaur fossils. Big deal. Yes, there were big creatures that are gone now. Then there's this big gap. All the dinosaurs died, and new life was created. No links, no changing fossils, no changing DNA to explane the end of one cycle into another. Just a big liberal athiest guess.

At least our book explanes it. The first earth was destroyed and left null and void. God created new species and here we are. Ours explanes why there is no link, no fossils , no changing DNA. It doesn't exist!

That's my point. If animals want to live, why haven't they changed to something that can't be eaten?

You imply a brain capacity in what we consider "food animals" wheren they can contemplate and attempt rebellion against their fate. You also seem to think that organisms can somehow choose to adopt new traits. That is not the case. Evolution isn't driven by any inherent desire of the species, it is driven by mutation and natural selection. Animals haven't changed to something that can't be eaten because so far there hasn't been any mutation that would turn them into such (much less a viable mutation). If you think that evolution makes such a prediction, then please use the theory -- the actual written theory and not your apparent strawman -- to explain how this would be psossible (according to the theory).

Attack the messanger-again.

Given that the "messenger" is altering the message, it's a perfectly justified attack. You are attacking evolution because things that evolution does not predict aren't happening. You are lying about the theory and using those lies to "prove" that the theory is false.

Don't attack creationism unless you know what you're talking about.

Where have I specifically attacked creationism?

If you claim there's no proof God created man in his image, show me the proof that primortal ooze created man.

I have never claimed that "primortal ooze created man", nor do I claim such. Further, disproving that statement would not prove that "God created man in his image". If you are making the claim regarding God then the burden of proof is upon you to support your claim, and not on me to prove otherwise. So many creationists seem to think that disproving evolution would somehow "prove" Biblical creationism, and that is not the case any more than disproving Biblical creationism would prove evolution.

All the dinosaurs died, and new life was created. No links, no changing fossils, no changing DNA to explane the end of one cycle into another.

Your ignorance of the fossil record is noted.

Just a big liberal athiest guess.

Not every person who accepts the theory of evolution is a liberal. Not every person who accepts the theory of evolution is an atheist. Not every atheist is a liberal. Not every liberal is an atheist.

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.