If One Believes in Intelligent Design...

[BL2KTN]

... does that also mean they believe the designer was intimately involved in creating a wasp's stinger, a viper's venom, malaria, viruses, and neurotoxins? There are millions of ways organisms out there cause pain and suffering... an intelligent designer would have had to design all these agonizing delivery systems.

The question is more philosophical than scientific because this thread is not about the probability of Intelligent Design, but simply the philosophical implications of the belief.

 

[lesliedellow]

... does that also mean they believe the designer was intimately involved in creating a wasp's stinger, a viper's venom, malaria, viruses, and neurotoxins? There are millions of ways organisms out there cause pain and suffering... an intelligent designer would have had to design all these agonizing delivery systems.

The question is more philosophical than scientific because this thread is not about the probability of Intelligent Design, but simply the philosophical implications of the belief.

Intelligent design is an ambiguous term because it can either mean, a la Michael Behe, that God had to intervene along the way, for Evoltion to overcome otherwise insurmountable obstacles, or it can simply mean that God, who is intelligent, created the universe.

To answer the theological/philosophical question: Yes, God created all things, including those things we would doubtless prefer not to exist.

 

[Feldon]

Are you asking why God would also give a rose its thorns?

(I think American philosopher Bret Michaels addressed this question already.)

 

[Strivax]

Whether you believe in intelligent design or not, I do not see how an omniscient and omnipotent creator God can escape responsibility for 'natural' evil. If we are to have Him omnibenevolent as well, that is where the paradoxes arise. The standard response is to argue that greater goods arise that outweigh the apparent evils, but this is essentially a faith position based on a debatable quality of moral discrimination, unlikely to convince the unconvinced.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[mark kennedy]

... does that also mean they believe the designer was intimately involved in creating a wasp's stinger, a viper's venom, malaria, viruses, and neurotoxins? There are millions of ways organisms out there cause pain and suffering... an intelligent designer would have had to design all these agonizing delivery systems.

The question is more philosophical than scientific because this thread is not about the probability of Intelligent Design, but simply the philosophical implications of the belief.

Sound's like Darwinism. Still, your right, it makes no sense that God designed the world to be riddled with violence. It's hard to get a clear view of what the original design was since it has been marred and mutated over thousands of years.

I think it might be useful to think a little more precisely with regards to the general ideas of ID and alternative ideas.

 

[BL2KTN]

I just find it interesting that ID proponents want to point to the intricacy of the human eye, but not to the intricacy of a wasp's sting system. There are no mutations that could create such perfection in pain delivery over just a few thousand years... if the world is thousands of years old, and God the designer, then it must be recognized how attentively he created the wasp's weapon...

... along with millions of other torturous concepts He must have painstakingly crafted.

 

[keith99]

I just find it interesting that ID proponents want to point to the intricacy of the human eye, but not to the intricacy of a wasp's sting system. There are no mutations that could create such perfection in pain delivery over just a few thousand years... if the world is thousands of years old, and God the designer, then it must be recognized how attentively he created the wasp's weapon...

... along with millions of other torturous concepts He must have painstakingly crafted.

I find it interesting the C. Darwin dealt with the issue of the eye in great detail in 'The Origin of Species'.

Anyone who had actually read that work would not bring the eye up (unless disputing the details of what Darwin said) unless either they were an idiot or thought their audience was.

 

[Received]

What I'm even more interested in than the OP is why God would make so many beetles. He must have a thing for beetles. Become ye like Beatles, er, beetles...right Ringo?

 

[theophilus777]

... does that also mean they believe the designer was intimately involved in creating a wasp's stinger, a viper's venom, malaria, viruses, and neurotoxins? There are millions of ways organisms out there cause pain and suffering... an intelligent designer would have had to design all these agonizing delivery systems.

The question is more philosophical than scientific because this thread is not about the probability of Intelligent Design, but simply the philosophical implications of the belief.

Haven't read the thread and I do hope somebody else beat me to this but the Biblical concept is that creation got turned upside down with sin. Not sure how you missed that? The ENTIRE rest of the Bible is simply showing us God's way back to the original intent. If you take that in view, perhaps you will have less trouble understanding what you read, and might even make a good showing in a debate, someday.

 

[theophilus777]

To answer the theological/philosophical question: Yes, God created all things, including those things we would doubtless prefer not to exist.

Yeah, about that ark: couldn't we just leave those creeping things off?

 

[theophilus777]

What I'm even more interested in than the OP is why God would make so many beetles. He must have a thing for beetles. Become ye like Beatles, er, beetles...right Ringo?

Love is all you need - even if you are a Walrus?

 

[lost999]

I asked myself this question after watching a show on the megladon.

There's no way sharks were feeding on vegetation before "the fall". That animal has been a carnivorous predator since the beginning of its existence, and always will be.

 

[theophilus777]

I asked myself this question after watching a show on the megladon.

There's no way sharks were feeding on vegetation before "the fall". That animal has been a carnivorous predator since the beginning of its existence, and always will be.

Aw c'mon, next you'll try to tell us T-Rex was a dedicated carnivore too.

 

[lost999]

Aw c'mon, next you'll try to tell us T-Rex was a dedicated carnivore too.

Not willing to go that far.

 

[theophilus777]

Not willing to go that far.

Darn, here I thought I had designed the perfect poe

 

[lost999]

Darn, here I thought I had designed the perfect poe

Poe?

 

[theophilus777]

I thought everybody heard of Poe's law by now? Its the only thing that drew me to find CF in the first place. "Quoth the Raven, nevermore;" but apparently Nathan Poe lives on here in another form ...

To understand the law, just look at what I did. Its my best work here so far

Could you tell if I was serious or parodying a fundy with my T-Rex comment?

 

[branchofthevine]

Now I don't usually come to threads like these cause I don't know science and don't wish to bash others in with my ignorance, but I had a thought on observing this one in particular.

Are these things mentioned in the OP considered negative in terms of pain and suffering in an evolutionary perspective, or is it only brought up when asking about Intelligent Design?

Say, if a Wasp is considered just as a natural process in Evolution, but somehow used as an argument against Intelligent Design based on it's ability to inflict pain seems like a flawed argument to begin with, unless it is also seen as an argument against the morality of evolution (which I've never heard of an argument like that before).

 

[poolerboy0077]

Now I don't usually come to threads like these cause I don't know science and don't wish to bash others in with my ignorance, but I had a thought on observing this one in particular.

Are these things mentioned in the OP considered negative in terms of pain and suffering in an evolutionary perspective, or is it only brought up when asking about Intelligent Design?

Say, if a Wasp is considered just as a natural process in Evolution, but somehow used as an argument against Intelligent Design based on it's ability to inflict pain seems like a flawed argument to begin with, unless it is also seen as an argument against the morality of evolution (which I've never heard of an argument like that before).

Well no because evolution is just a recognition of reality, like when we recognize that some species of insects eat the males after mating. It's not a moral system or an ideology. Intelligent Design per se isn't a moral system or belief either but the invocation of it is done in the context of a creator deity who is said to care about its creation and is all loving. So with evolution there's really no one to blame since nature generally and biology specifically is "blind" and isn't a person or conscious entity to be blamed for making imperfections, whereas a deity who is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful can be held accountable. Therein lies the difference.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've heard arguments that God providentially created animals with stingers and fangs to deal with the consequences of a fallen world.

The issue really doesn't bother me because I consider Genesis "myth", in the non-perjorative sense, a "true myth".

The problem of pain is something apologists like William Lane Craig or C.S. Lewis have addressed. We don't know for certain how much, or even if, animals suffer. They clearly feel pain, but to suffer is more than to feel pain, suffering for human beings results from the cognitive faculties we have, the ability to imagine the world as being something other than "the way it is". One can suffer and not be feeling any pain at all.