|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ebola
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
How do creationists / believers in intelligent design explain Ebola ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's really not that hard, when you take into account the Fall. The presumption is the same as for any other now-nasty thing like mosquitoes or even evil human beings--that it was created good, and has been twisted from its original nature.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Given that interpretation though - it must have been on the Ark along with bubonic plague and all the other nasties. Do they ever come up with an explanation for how the non-waterborne diseases survived without killing the tiny number of humans on board who'd be repeatedly exposed to them all?
[ 25. October 2014, 00:00: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How do creationists / believers in intelligent design explain Ebola?
I was thinking about a similar question when watching a nature documentary recently. The documentary was looking at various parasites, nasties, carnivores etc and the sophisticated ways they had evolved in order to efficiently prey on their targets.
The thought I had was basically "wow, it really stretches my belief in evolution to think it has managed to produce such complicated mechanisms of action that are so inter-dependent on other species. It really seems like these things have been designed to interact... But if there was a designer that would mean the designer was really really sadistic and nasty because the interactions, though sophisticated, are not nice interactions!"
Basically the idea of a benevolent designer becomes very implausible when you study how animals, insects etc actually interact and how the equipment they all have serves harmful functions. Nature looks far more as if it was designed by sadistic alien scientists in some sort of reality show competition aiming to create the most nasty ways for animals to die possible, and then all their experiments escaped the lab and made it to earth!
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's really not that hard, when you take into account the Fall.
I've never really seen an explanation deeper than "it was the fall... ~handwaves~". That's not really a very convincing explanation for exactly how all these animals developed extremely sophisticated mechanisms for viciously hurting and killing each other. If the sophistication of those mechanisms implies design, then who designed them? Did God, after the fall, deliberately re-engineer all animals to make them nastier (why?), or did Satan get to try his hand extensively at genetic manipulation and redesign (why?). Or are all these animals going so nasty just a result of evolution since the fall... which would seem an admission that most of the complexity we see around us comes from evolution...?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I was thinking about a similar question when watching a nature documentary recently. The documentary was looking at various parasites, nasties, carnivores etc and the sophisticated ways they had evolved in order to efficiently prey on their targets.
The thought I had was basically "wow, it really stretches my belief in evolution to think it has managed to produce such complicated mechanisms of action that are so inter-dependent on other species.
IMO, it only stretches belief if you think of these organisms as having evolved to exploit an existing organism. If you think about them evolving together, not so much.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Plus, something like ebola isn't evolved for us, anyway. Many of our worst diseases aren't. They are bugs that live fairly happily and peacefully in their natural hosts, but wreak havoc when in another species - us - that is sufficiently similar to be a host.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
which would seem an admission that most of the complexity we see around us comes from evolution...?
It doesn't require an explanation for something like ebola to reach that conclusion. A simple estimate of how many animals that could fit into the Ark, for which the Bible gives dimensions, shows that the vast majority of species present on Earth could not have been on the Ark. Which leaves one of three alternatives:
- The Flood was not universal, and there was plenty of room on non-flooded areas of earth for all the species not on the Ark (and, probably most of those on the Ark too). In which case, why bother with the Ark in the first place?
- God created a whole load of new species after the water receded. In which case, why bother with the Ark in the first place?
- The Ark carried representatives of different groups of species, and the species we currently observe on earth evolved from those few pairs. Even if we accept the micro/macro-evolution distinction (which is, of course, completely bogus) and declare that all the species of (say) felines micro-evolved from one or two example feline species on the Ark, the rate of micro-evolution for that to happen would be extremely high. Which does rather raise the question of why the same Creationists criticise science because the rate of evolutionary change needed to explain the fossil record on a billion year time scale is too high to be plausible, while orders of magnitude slower than that needed to (micro)-evolve all the different species from the Ark.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which leaves one of three alternatives:
You're forgetting 4) The Ark was bigger on the inside. We know Noah lived into triple figures: we now know he had two hearts and wore an impractically long scarf. (I'm sure there's a verse in Ezekiel that explains that.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which leaves one of three alternatives:
You're forgetting 4) The Ark was bigger on the inside. We know Noah lived into triple figures: we now know he had two hearts and wore an impractically long scarf. (I'm sure there's a verse in Ezekiel that explains that.)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, I did forget that alternative.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
That's not really a very convincing explanation for exactly how all these animals developed extremely sophisticated mechanisms for viciously hurting and killing each other.
No animal has ever developed the sophisticated, vicious mechanisms for killing that humans have. Animal ways of hurting are tame in comparison.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Keep in mind that many creationists will say they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution or emergent evolution. Species can change, but new species cannot arise. (I'm not saying this makes sense, but I have heard it from many, many creationists as an explanation of intraspecies change, without having to accept interspecies or transspecies change.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Keep in mind that many creationists will say they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution or emergent evolution. Species can change, but new species cannot arise. (I'm not saying this makes sense, but I have heard it from many, many creationists as an explanation of intraspecies change, without having to accept interspecies or transspecies change.)
And yet they'll also claim that all the modern cat species evolved from a single "cat kind" on the ark. "Kinds" appear to be elastic categories to be widened for the ark, but then narrowed in order to deny inter-specific evolution. Most rank and file creationists in my experience don't know what a species is.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, I had quite forgotten about the misuse of the word "kind." You're absolutely right.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most rank and file creationists in my experience don't know what a species is.
They also generally don't know that what they're claiming happened ("microevolution") is the same as what scientists claim (more or less, with some differences in rate, as creationists want to accelerate things way beyond rates that scientists would consider implausible for natural systems). The distinction they draw between "micro" and "macro" evolution is simply the difference between a few steps of evolutionary change and lots of steps. It's a meaningless, arbitrary, line on a continuum of change.
Yes, that's right, YECies believe in evolution. They're just in denial.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
That's not really a very convincing explanation for exactly how all these animals developed extremely sophisticated mechanisms for viciously hurting and killing each other.
No animal has ever developed the sophisticated, vicious mechanisms for killing that humans have. Animal ways of hurting are tame in comparison.
You underestimate what has evolved in nature;
parasites practicing mind control
Bombadier Beetles
hyper parasite wasps
[ 25. October 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Plus, something like ebola isn't evolved for us, anyway. Many of our worst diseases aren't. They are bugs that live fairly happily and peacefully in their natural hosts, but wreak havoc when in another species - us - that is sufficiently similar to be a host.
This is an excellent point. I think it's a kind of narcissism that assumes that various bugs and viruses are out to get us.
This has been tied in with human development in relation to livestock, since possibly in Europe and the Middle East, humans became to some extent immune to the diseases carried by livestock, but when Europeans went to other parts of the world, the people there had not developed immunity, and were decimated by them.
It is of course a contentious theory - found in 'Guns, Germs and Steel', by Jared Diamond. One contradiction to it, is that Africa contained diseases which ravaged Europeans, e.g. yellow fever.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's really not that hard, when you take into account the Fall.
I've never really seen an explanation deeper than "it was the fall... ~handwaves~". That's not really a very convincing explanation for exactly how all these animals developed extremely sophisticated mechanisms for viciously hurting and killing each other. If the sophistication of those mechanisms implies design, then who designed them? Did God, after the fall, deliberately re-engineer all animals to make them nastier (why?), or did Satan get to try his hand extensively at genetic manipulation and redesign (why?). Or are all these animals going so nasty just a result of evolution since the fall... which would seem an admission that most of the complexity we see around us comes from evolution...?
Well, the idea of the fall producing things like ebola has a kind of elegance - it explains everything by describing nothing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The whole question has to be based on the idea that most creationists don't want an actual answer. They are quite content with a "hand-wavey" warm, fuzzy idea that it is all "God, Fall, does what He will, all our fault" with the addition of "People shouldn't know stuff" as a basic premise. Just go with The Book as an idol.
IOW, the worship of graven images, and a need to avoid anything resembling thought.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
So, our ancestors took one bite each of a fruit, which may, or may not have been an apple, or a pomegranate, or may even have been a metaphor for lighting a fire (that's what every other culture reckoned to be the forbidden thing from a tree), and all the nasties cascaded out to envelope everything below the lunar orbit, without having been planned first, because God, who is all good, couldn't have done that. Thus being proved incompetent in the forethought department, or the risk assessment and health and safety area. At least the Greeks claimed that the deities HAD planned the nasties. It's ridiculous. Why can't the YECs see that?
[ 26. October 2014, 19:55: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
So, our ancestors took one bite each of a fruit, which may, or may not have been an apple, or a pomegranate, or may even have been a metaphor for lighting a fire (that's what every other culture reckoned to be the forbidden thing from a tree), and all the nasties cascaded out to envelope everything below the lunar orbit, without having been planned first, because God, who is all good, couldn't have done that. Thus being proved incompetent in the forethought department, or the risk assessment and health and safety area. At least the Greeks claimed that the deities HAD planned the nasties. It's ridiculous. Why can't the YECs see that?
Because the YECs are not well educated about animal biology and are not the sort of people who watch modern nature documentaries to educate themselves about the world? And hence they actually have no idea about how sophisticatedly nasty much of the animal kingdom is? And so they never think about this?
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, I suppose I ought to give you somebody to shoot at. Yes, I am a creationist. No, I am not the stereotypical YECist you are painting--in fact, I don't actually know any of the people you are painting so vividly.
Am I aware that nature has some real, real nasty stuff in it? Yes. I have been for ages. I mean, wasps that lay eggs in caterpillars so the larvae can eat them alive? Rapist dolphins? Cub-killing lions? the fact that malaria-laden mosquitoes prefer to feast on pregnant women? Yes. I know all that.
And no, I don't wave my hands and say vaguely, "The Fall." I do believe the Fall is the ultimate source of this corruption in nature, as it is in humanity. But exactly how this works, I don't know. I haven't been told anymore than you have.
What I see in nature is a beautiful, intricate, system of systems that has gotten skewed. It is obviously not completely corrupt, but it's just as obviously not the way it ought to be. And before someone eats me on account of "ought to be," ask yourself where this nagging universal "that's just not right" attitude comes from. It appears to be born into us. There is no culture I'm aware of that believes humanity is in proper harmony with the world, with itself, or with God/gods. Why the universal unease?
As for micro-evolution: We aren't idiots. We know damn well that things evolve. The dispute is over the degree to which evolution has created/effected what we see today. I have serious issues with the belief that the complexity around us, in all of its beauty and intricacy, managed to take place in an entropic universe in the amount of time scientists estimate has passed since the Big Bang. I mean, damn. There aren't enough zeroes out there. And to this the only argument I've ever received is "Well, obviously it CAN happen, because it HAS happened." Which is as much a faith statement as "God did it."
Okay, ebola. what do I think of it? Duh, I loathe it. At least insofar as it is killing off people and some animals in ghastly ways.
I would dearly love to know what ebola was originally supposed to function like, in an unfallen universe. I imagine I'll never know--or, if I do, it'll be way too late for any of us to post it to the Ship's boards. Nevertheless, I suspect that science can and will eventually throw some light on what ebola is doing in its harmless hosts--that is, whatever natural reservoir it usually lives in, between outbreaks of making the news. It could be a simple hitchhiker or parasite. Perhaps, who knows? it might actually be doing some bird or mammal somewhere a service, and be in a symbiotic relationship. I don't know. And at the moment that doesn't really matter, does it, so much as trying to contain the damage it does when it gets out of that natural reservoir.
But I'd be grateful if some of you folks would stop stereotyping. Not everyone who believes in creation, the flood, etc. is a troglodyte.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So do you believe Ebola, and similar viruses, were created but corrupted - or that they evolved from something else ?
(And are you asserting that before the fall there was no predation or disease ?)
[ 26. October 2014, 22:30: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What I see in nature is a beautiful, intricate, system of systems that has gotten skewed. It is obviously not completely corrupt, but it's just as obviously not the way it ought to be.
Part of the problem is that our analysis of what's "beautiful" in nature is naturally humanocentric, geared towards what we find aesthetically pleasing or useful. Which is why you hear people going on about the beauty of God's creation in a rainbow or the flight of a butterfly, but never about the beauty of a child's intestinal tract being liquified by ebola.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for micro-evolution: We aren't idiots. We know damn well that things evolve. The dispute is over the degree to which evolution has created/effected what we see today. I have serious issues with the belief that the complexity around us, in all of its beauty and intricacy, managed to take place in an entropic universe in the amount of time scientists estimate has passed since the Big Bang. I mean, damn. There aren't enough zeroes out there.
Can you walk us through your analysis of how much time you think it should take to generate complex organisms via descent with modification in a selective environment? I'm curious as to how many zeroes you think it would take.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But the argument that not enough time has elapsed for evolution to work, is basically the argument from incredulity, isn't it?
It's like saying, I can't believe that evolution could proceed from single cells to humans in 3 or 4 billions years. I think there are some statistical analyses of this, so I will have a look.
[ 26. October 2014, 23:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
I believe in macro-evolution, and I don't think the matter of the number of zeroes is relevant, but otherwise, as seems so often the case, I wholly agree with Lamb Chopped on all counts. And no, that's not really a contradiction.
[ 27. October 2014, 00:41: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So do you believe Ebola, and similar viruses, were created but corrupted - or that they evolved from something else ?
(And are you asserting that before the fall there was no predation or disease ?)
yes to your first question--I'm good either way. And as for the second, I can't say. Remember that the angelic fall happened before the human fall--and God only knows what effect that had on the Universe & Everything.™ For all I know, there may have been disease and predation going on, and humanity was intended to aid in the clean up. I just don't know. We aren't told.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm no mathematician, and I won't start fighting over zeroes. Incredulity? Well, yes, on my part, but that is of course not a basis for logical argument, and I'm not putting it forward as such. But I am noting that it is precisely the same objection so many make to miracles--the vast improbability of them.
Which means that we are no forwarder in the argument on either side.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm no mathematician, and I won't start fighting over zeroes. Incredulity? Well, yes, on my part, but that is of course not a basis for logical argument, and I'm not putting it forward as such. But I am noting that it is precisely the same objection so many make to miracles--the vast improbability of them.
The difference is that miracles are, by the usual understanding of the term, things beyond human understanding with no obvious cause. Disbelieving evolution because it doesn't have enough zeros is similar to disbelieving the germ theory of disease for the same reason. It's a claim that can be examined and investigated, unlike the miraculous.
If you're not putting forward your "not enough time" theory as a logical argument, what did you put it forward as?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In which case you're just making an unsupported claim. I'm not asking you to do the math yourself if you feel that's beyond your expertise, but if you're going to claim that quote:
I have serious issues with the belief that the complexity around us, in all of its beauty and intricacy, managed to take place in an entropic universe in the amount of time scientists estimate has passed since the Big Bang. I mean, damn. There aren't enough zeroes out there.
then I presume you're basing this on some estimate that someone has made of how many extra zero's are needed.
Here's my back of the envelop calculation. Start with one recent small evolutionary step. The human genome contains 20-25,000 genes (I'll work with the bigger number). We share 99% of that with chimps and bonobos, that's 250 different genes. Assume both groups evolved at the same rate, and each are 125 genes different from our common ancestor. Spontaneous mutation happens at a rate of approximately 0.1-100 per genome per generation (Drake etal 1998), and I'll take the lower value. That's one gene per ten generations. 1250 generations to the common human-chimp/bonobo ancestor. Approximately 25,000 years. That's all. The geological record gives 4 million years, about 150x as long. Of course, many of those mutations would be deliterious and thus not be inherited. A 1% of mutations being inherited would still bring the rate of human evolution well within the observed rate from geological records. And, I'm still using the lowest rate of spontaneous mutation. I've still got three zero's to play with.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There aren't enough zeroes out there.
In which case there aren't enough zeroes out there for a heck of lot of things. The grains of sand on a beach. The stars in the sky. The cells in our bodies.
In truth I am somewhat agnostic about many of these creationist matters, in that it's rarely something I think much about it. But the idea is that there just hasn't been enough time around is HIGHLY problematic. As soon as you start accepting that life is very, very old rather than about 6000 years old, there is a great deal of time in which things can happen.
[ 27. October 2014, 06:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So do you believe Ebola, and similar viruses, were created but corrupted - or that they evolved from something else ?
(And are you asserting that before the fall there was no predation or disease ?)
yes to your first question--I'm good either way. And as for the second, I can't say. Remember that the angelic fall happened before the human fall--and God only knows what effect that had on the Universe & Everything.™ For all I know, there may have been disease and predation going on, and humanity was intended to aid in the clean up. I just don't know. We aren't told.
So your answer boils down to; the scientific hypothesis is wrong, but I am not going to posit a more plausible mechanism nor attempt to address any of the moral issues created by the belief I am espousing.
Follow-up question: why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God create a system that could go this wrong ? Just because we can not conceive of a perfect creation including free will does not make it impossible for such a God to create one. Therefore. Does that make the fall intended ? If so, for what reason ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What I see in nature is a beautiful, intricate, system of systems that has gotten skewed. It is obviously not completely corrupt, but it's just as obviously not the way it ought to be. And before someone eats me on account of "ought to be," ask yourself where this nagging universal "that's just not right" attitude comes from. It appears to be born into us.
I don't see anything corrupt about caterpillar eating wasps or viruses like ebola.
They just are. They evolved to survive in ways which worked for them. No morality or lack of it was involved.
It looks terrible to us because we do have the lens of morality to see these things through.
Bacteria have evolved to live in unbelievably hostile environments. Hats off to them - we wouldn't exist without them! But it does mean we have to fight them with all means possible when they 'decide' to evolve to live better by killing us.
None of this has to do with God, except in that S/he allowed it to happen, and gave the whole of creation freedom to evolve.
Without that freedom our morality could not have arisen and choice would never have become a factor in our lives.
But now we have what we have and need to live the best we can with the whole of creation. Not an easy task!
I do wonder how we (human kind) will ultimately survive 'tho, as health -wise we now rely on science rather than survival of the fittest - so we are 'cheating' nature and causing all sorts of survival which would never have happened pre science and modern medicine.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good points, Boogie, about bacteria, since there are plenty of beneficial ones. Presumably, mammals evolved in the presence of bacteria, so have learned to cope with them.
Incidentally, on ebola, some researchers say that their origin is in fruit bats, which are eaten in parts of Africa, and possibly also contaminate fruit.
If this is true, it would be another example of a disease derived from animals, as so many are.
The point made by Alan Cresswell, that we share 99% of genes with chimps and so on, always strikes me as a killing argument for evolution. Do creationists say that God deliberately created such a close relationship? Or I suppose you could say that God is behind evolution in such cases?
[ 27. October 2014, 08:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
we now rely on science rather than survival of the fittest - so we are 'cheating' nature and causing all sorts of survival which would never have happened pre science and modern medicine.
Our ability to discover what science and medicine can accomplish, and to apply it, may very well be an example of survival of the fittest.
And for all we know, perhaps God intended cockroaches and viruses to rule the world after all, and our presumption that he intended us to do so is nothing more than a sin of pride.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Good points, Boogie, about bacteria, since there are plenty of beneficial ones. Presumably, mammals evolved in the presence of bacteria, so have learned to cope with them.
...
not only cope. A human body contains about 10 parts bacterial DNA to 1 part human DNA. If all the non-human DNA (as bacteria, maybe also as viruses) in your body were removed, your survival time would be less than a few hours - due to the metabolic, enzyme producing, and immune functions of these bacterial colonies.
It seriously begs the question - what is human? if humanity is (as in homo sapiens) to be defined by DNA.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
we now rely on science rather than survival of the fittest - so we are 'cheating' nature and causing all sorts of survival which would never have happened pre science and modern medicine.
Our ability to discover what science and medicine can accomplish, and to apply it, may very well be an example of survival of the fittest.
...
Yes - I am here writing this today because a) I was given antibiotics when I was a baby, and b) I had an emergency appendix op at age about 23yo. But if we ever get to a point where we no longer have access to modern medicine, there will be a big die-back in western countries who have used medicine to prolong life when it would have otherwise have gone to the recycling yard. I can't help but notice how strong and resilient the people look (compared to joe/jill average in western countries) from countries who have not had a few generations availability of universal medicine. Of course, this also could be more to do with how we handle (or not) "stress", the strength of family and community bonds, etc etc... but somehow the general population in the middle east, in china, and in many countries in africa look massively healthier than the population on teh street in my home town.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
we now rely on science rather than survival of the fittest - so we are 'cheating' nature and causing all sorts of survival which would never have happened pre science and modern medicine.
Our ability to discover what science and medicine can accomplish, and to apply it, may very well be an example of survival of the fittest.
And for all we know, perhaps God intended cockroaches and viruses to rule the world after all, and our presumption that he intended us to do so is nothing more than a sin of pride.
Yes, we are part of nature, so I always find it odd when people say that we are cheating it. You might as well say that spiders cheat by building webs.
You could describe science as helping the survival of the fitted; I suppose it might also bring about our destruction. Well, nature can do that also, as with the large dinosaurs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could describe science as helping the survival of the fitted; I suppose it might also bring about our destruction. Well, nature can do that also, as with the large dinosaurs.
Yes but "nature" in that sense can't go, "Ooops, this is a bad idea. Let's not do this."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: You could describe science as helping the survival of the fitted; I suppose it might also bring about our destruction. Well, nature can do that also, as with the large dinosaurs.
Perhaps intelligence is Nature's way of weaponing itself against the next big asteroid.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: You could describe science as helping the survival of the fitted; I suppose it might also bring about our destruction. Well, nature can do that also, as with the large dinosaurs.
Perhaps intelligence is Nature's way of weaponing itself against the next big asteroid.
I thought that Will Smith has been provided for that purpose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I thought that was Bruce Willis
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
But if we ever get to a point where we no longer have access to modern medicine, there will be a big die-back in western countries who have used medicine to prolong life when it would have otherwise have gone to the recycling yard. I can't help but notice how strong and resilient the people look (compared to joe/jill average in western countries) from countries who have not had a few generations availability of universal medicine. Of course, this also could be more to do with how we handle (or not) "stress", the strength of family and community bonds, etc etc... but somehow the general population in the middle east, in china, and in many countries in africa look massively healthier than the population on teh street in my home town.
Nothing like a high rate of
infant mortality and a lack of support for people who need glasses to clean out those sickly looking types.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You could describe science as helping the survival of the fitted;
Does one's survival depend on the proper fitting of one's suit?
In the case of hazmat, obviously, yes; but in everyday terms, I doubt that, especially for those. like farmers, who have work to do.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In which case you're just making an unsupported claim. I'm not asking you to do the math yourself if you feel that's beyond your expertise, but if you're going to claim that quote:
I have serious issues with the belief that the complexity around us, in all of its beauty and intricacy, managed to take place in an entropic universe in the amount of time scientists estimate has passed since the Big Bang. I mean, damn. There aren't enough zeroes out there.
then I presume you're basing this on some estimate that someone has made of how many extra zero's are needed.
Here's my back of the envelop calculation. Start with one recent small evolutionary step. The human genome contains 20-25,000 genes (I'll work with the bigger number). We share 99% of that with chimps and bonobos, that's 250 different genes. Assume both groups evolved at the same rate, and each are 125 genes different from our common ancestor. Spontaneous mutation happens at a rate of approximately 0.1-100 per genome per generation (Drake etal 1998), and I'll take the lower value. That's one gene per ten generations. 1250 generations to the common human-chimp/bonobo ancestor. Approximately 25,000 years. That's all. The geological record gives 4 million years, about 150x as long. Of course, many of those mutations would be deliterious and thus not be inherited. A 1% of mutations being inherited would still bring the rate of human evolution well within the observed rate from geological records. And, I'm still using the lowest rate of spontaneous mutation. I've still got three zero's to play with.
Actually, I was not trying to make a claim, unsupported or otherwise. I was trying to give you all some insight into what an ordinary creationist of the non-stereotypical variety might be thinking. In other words, to try to replace your straw man.
I rarely visit these threads precisely because I do not have the scientific education I would prefer to speak on such subjects. I have a scientific background, yes; but for this stuff, I'd want at least a master's or PhD--which I do not have. So I mainly stick to the subjects in which I DO have those qualifications.
My goal was to give you a human being to consider--one who has done some reading, yes (Alan, of course you're right, I have done some reading and it's based on that that I got the zeroes thing) and one who is hopefully not a complete idiot. I do NOT hold the 6000 years idea--who came up with that, anyway? That fellow who added up ages in Genesis? Because that one I DO have the expertise to disagree with, as his error is based on a misunderstanding of Hebrew...
And have none of you ever heard of an old earth creationist?
But back to the point. I had one sole goal: to show you that there are intelligent people who struggle with the problems of creation/evolution from the other side. We are not idiots sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "la la la LA, I can't hear you!" We follow science. We read the books on the other side particularly, even those of us who are liberal arts majors. We see areas that concern us, and that we'd like to discuss. But frankly, given the "Kill them all!" attitude that usually develops on these threads (YES, THAT WAS A HYPERBOLE. DEAL WITH IT), we don't come to discuss the matters here--because we can't get a post out without being jumped on.
Now I invited the jumping on, and I'm not complaining about that. But do you not wish to know what it looks like on the other side of the divide? And that we're not all fools and idiots? Nor are we all exactly the same?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Yes - I am here writing this today because a) I was given antibiotics when I was a baby, and b) I had an emergency appendix op at age about 23yo. But if we ever get to a point where we no longer have access to modern medicine, there will be a big die-back in western countries who have used medicine to prolong life when it would have otherwise have gone to the recycling yard. I can't help but notice how strong and resilient the people look (compared to joe/jill average in western countries) from countries who have not had a few generations availability of universal medicine. Of course, this also could be more to do with how we handle (or not) "stress", the strength of family and community bonds, etc etc... but somehow the general population in the middle east, in china, and in many countries in africa look massively healthier than the population on teh street in my home town.
This interests me a great deal. I wonder, though, if part of the problem in comparing is that the very sick or disabled tend to be hidden in many of those countries. I know that in Vietnam disabled children are often kept so strictly to home that the neighbors aren't even aware there are such children. Which might skew the average appearance of people on the street in a positive direction.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
So your answer boils down to; the scientific hypothesis is wrong, but I am not going to posit a more plausible mechanism nor attempt to address any of the moral issues created by the belief I am espousing.
Follow-up question: why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God create a system that could go this wrong ? Just because we can not conceive of a perfect creation including free will does not make it impossible for such a God to create one. Therefore. Does that make the fall intended ? If so, for what reason ?
I'm committing the dreaded triple post, I know, but I just couldn't ignore this. As I mentioned above, I didn't come to this thread to engage in point by point argument on subjects some of which I feel unqualified to address (see: needs a master or doctor's degree, above). So please don't think I was trying to do a hit and run on the thread.
Now, as for what you asked--I don't like to theorize in a vacuum. You are asking me about the effects of the angelic fall. I have no data on this. I naturally tend to look to science therefore. You mention the scientific hypothesis (which part of it, exactly?). I suspect I go a lot further in agreement with that than you think, AFTER the angelic fall. But it would take a long discussion to tease out exactly how far the agreement stretches.
As for moral implications--it makes no sense for me to defend God. The moral implications of larvae-eating caterpillars etc. exist, regardless of whether they came into existence through straight evolution or through some sort of corruption after a fall from a good creation. In either case, there they are. We can as easily blame God for their continuing existence under creation as under evolution. So why should I mess up this thread by dragging in the whole vexed problem of evil?
And now I'll stop my multiple posting (Bad LC) and go off and do something useful.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
