Date:   5/31/2007 11:43:24 AM ( 17 y ago)
Hits:   3,662
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=883962

0 of 1 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Is it any more than an overweening human ego that proposes intelligent design for such a poorly designed creature? In this egoism, creationists confirm in a perverse way that they have great difficulty rising above their animal origins.

As a historical note, it is worthy to note that both Darwin and Wallace were willing to apply natural selection and natural evolution to all animals except humans.  In fact his suggestion that humans arose in Africa gave anthropologist a strong dislike for the man.  In their Edwardian thinking, such a place could not have given way to such a noble creature as humans.  They were all thinking Europe (naturally) or Asia.  It wasn't until Louis Leakey ignored the advice of his mentors and went to Africa in the 1930's that they finally accepted Africa as the place where we originated.

This little episode tells us 2 things.  1) Scientists can be just as emotional about a subject as anyone 2) When confronted with evidence they (unlike the religious) will change their mind.

Darwin also erred when he concluded in The Ascent of Man that humans evolved because of their tool/weapon making abilities.  In his view the use of technology drove evolution and resulted in our hairlessness, reduced canines, bipedalism, etc.  With this he imbued the early ancestors with a human quality already present, as even he could not fully embrace that we too are the product of random mutations and natural selection.   Again this view that humans (or the would-be humans) were special from the get-go held for a long time.  It was eventually discarded for biological explanations.   So Darwin too (and Wallace for those keeping score), was guilty of ego and could not belief that humans arouse from their humble animal origins.

Should we not have flounders if there was in intelligent designer?

Nothing about evolution disregards the existence of a God (it's what people mean when they  say IDer) but why add it to the mix?  It adds nothing to the understanding of the process, it by its nature is beyond the scope of inquiry and the natural explanation addresses all the issues.   Adding God to the explanation just adds a supernatural level of complexity that is not needed.  Yes, flounders can exist with God, but they can exist just as well without him.

Are they saying that the wings of bats or flippers on whales are not optimally designed?

No just those, but knees, our vertebra as a supporting column is terrible, human hips - just ask any mother how well those are designed for childbirth.  Do a search and you will find unnumerable examples of bad design in all animals.  The reason is that evolution can only work with what is present, a condition that a supreme being would not (I would assume) be bound to.
 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=883962