Animals with bad design.

Hi, Aaron. It does seem kind of contradictory, doesn't it?I'm not really a fan of these arguments, because I can't really imagine that a universe that was different would be very interesting to a designer.Still, it does make me wonder why the Designer wanted the world to be like this. For example, things like why all animals with mammary glands should also have four limbs; and why all animals with feathers should also lay eggs.----- You're assuming that the world has to work the way it does in order to argue that the world has to be the way it is.We all agree with you that the system we live with works rather well; but I worry about people who don't at least question the morality of being who designs a system in which living things have to kill other living things in order to eat, particularly when this being is also believed to love and care about its creations.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

What is your definition of good design? Or perfect design?If you take your logic to its ultimate end, the only perfect creature would be one that could never die - perfectly able to defend itself from any adversity.Again, if that was the case - and all creatures fit into your idea of perfection, there would be no exchange of nutrients. The verse you reference may include these animal pictures as metaphors of peace and harmony. The question, however, is a good one. If God is going to make a new heaven and earth one day that will be perfect, why didn't He start out with it in the first place?There have been a lot of philosophical musings on the subject - most of which deal with the issue of free will. I'm not thoroughly versed in the all the arguments. Hugh Ross wrote a book on the subject. He has some interesting podcasts that deal with how the physics of the current universe were designed to get rid of evil in the most efficient way possible. (Page not found - Reasons to Believe)The short answer to your question is that God designed this world for a specific purpose - in order to make it possible for the perfect world yet to come.

Whales have mammary glands - and only two limbs.
There are animals who don't have feathers that lay eggs. So, you think killing an animals is morally wrong? How about stepping on an ant? What's the difference?I think your evoking a post-modern moral idea and suggesting that God should be bound to it.Is it not caring for your creation by providing it food?The only alternative to living things dying for food is if all life were photosynthetic. Nature shows us quite clearly what the limitations are for organisms that live off the sun's energy. You would not have the large, complex, mobile creatures there are today.

Hi, Aaron. Good point: this may actually be true for some whales, but I'm pretty sure most whales still have four limbs.----- There are also animals that don't have mammary glands, but do have four limbs.There's a reason I said the sentence in the order I did.----- No, I don't killing animals is morally wrong. There's a difference between living inside a system that requires killing and creating a system that requires killing.As you correctly stated, those of us living in this world have to kill something in order to eat, so we can hardly be faulted for killing.On the other hand, God didn't have to make killing a requirement, but He did, so He clearly can be faulted for that.And please notice that I said, "...at least question the morality of a being who..." You're free to make whatever moral decisions you feel are appropriate, and I'm not interested in challenging you on that: but if you're not even going to consider the possibility that it might not have been moral to make a system in which success requires killing, then I don't trust that you are making an honest effort to make informed moral decisions.----- You're still assuming that the universe has to work the way it does in order to argue that it must be the way it is.Isn't it God who designed the universe such that photosynthesis has these energetic limits? What prevented Him from making photosynthesis energetically sufficient to power the metabolisms of animals?Edited by Bluejay, : skipped a word.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Aaron. Isn't immortality also an aspect of perfection as described in the Bible?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Quote from Aaron: As other posters have commented - a bad design for one critter is invariably a good design for a competitive critter (competitive for resources etc).So the only way you can describe a design as 'good' is by the maxim:"If the 'design' can stay around long enough in this murderously competitive world long enough to reproduce more copies of itself then it is (by the ruthless standards of nature all around it) a good design.Guess what? That is EXACTLY what Natural Selection (one of the two driving principles of evolution) is all about. So the principal definition of good design is one in which natural selection favours its continued existence against the backdrop of millions of other individuals and species competing fiercely against it.....issue solved! Precisely! Can't you see that's why Dr A is arguing AGAINST your god for this very reason? Being the perfect creator able to do ANYTHING He wants, why would the disaster area we call 'life on earth' be a work of God? He should hold his head in shame at the 99.99% species failure rate and the trillions upon trillions of deaths over the ages - imagine the uncountable suffering (or do you not believe that 'lesser' animals can suffer pain or anguish?) that has gone on over the aeons. Why produce a god-awful mess like our ecosystem when he could have ‘magiked’ the whole thing into perfection from the get go? This is, of course, pure supposition based entirely on your a-priori belief system!Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Got it. Makes sense now. This world is just the product of an apprentice god learning on the job. Once he learns the basics then he will try to become a journeyman god and maybe even a master craftsman so he can do better next time.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Surely an all knowing, all powerful deity could create an active and mobile photosynthetic organism.

Hi Aaron,First, I'm glad you started this thread. We need more articulate creationist members. But that's not quite the whole story is it? Some whales have the vestigial remains of pelvic bones and even femurs, despite having no obvious rear limbs. Take a look at this image, which shows the skeleton of a whale, with clearly visible limb remnants. Note that they are not attached to the rest of the skeleton. So on the surface we have an oddity; a tetrapod with only two limbs. However, closer examination reveals clear evidence of the evolutionary changes that led to the loss of the hind limbs. What's more, fossil evidence gives us a very good picture of how whales evolved and lost those limbs. You can take a look at a a number of transitional fossils of early whales and proto-whales, along with an excellent detailed essay on whale evolution at this page;The Evolution of Whales, Adapted from National Geographic, November 2001Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Co-evolution, sometimes referred to as "arms races" are complex relationships between predator and prey, parasite and host. If God has designed these systems which quite often result in the prolonged suffering of one party or another, shame on him. Evolutionary theory dispenses with this silly idea of a gamemaster (or apprentice creator as jar wittily put it before) looking down on his experimental globe of subjects, nudging them this way or that for jollies, by presenting a framework for understanding how gradual changes over time can explain these complex systems that at first glance might appear "designed". Keep posting... apart from this... ... which is unfounded, unsupported opinion, I found your comments interesting.

I agree with the main premise of the statement.I believe God set up things in the beginning to adapt and evolve.I don't think every creature on earth looks exactly like it did when it was first created. I believe God endued each creature with the genetic ability to adapt to certain environments. Certainly, natural selection has played a roll in shaping the way creatures look and behave.It is possible that some environmental and genetic swings have caused creatures to change in such a way that might not look like good design.As an illustration, God didn't create English bulldogs with heads so big that they couldn't be born naturally. I understand nobody would propose this, but it goes to show that creatures possess the genetic potential for quirky body shapes that might not work well in a different environment - if the proper factors were at hand to shape them.Similarly, one guy told me people aren't designed properly because of the propensity of back problems we have today. Maybe someone would argue the same thing from seeing the rampant obesity and diabetes. I would argue that the body was designed to work properly under certain circumstances and diet. Many of the health problems we see are not from bad design, but from lack of proper nutrition and excercise.

Why exactly do you think this is an imperfection, besides the fact that "they" say it is?Perhaps it doesn't seem logical to us - but have there been any models to propose that a shorter nerve would enhance the fitness of the organism?

(hit submit too soon - edit)Edited by Aaron, : hit submit to soonEdited by Aaron, : No reason given.

Why have you ignored most of Bluejay's post?

Do you consider the whale "pelvis" to be two extra limbs?By definition, a limb is an external body part. Under the current universe's properties of physics and chemistry, there are only certain ways that things can operate. I don't think God would "magically" make a system able to work a certain way that defies the physics of the system.When you begin to conjecture about why God made the universe one way and not another, you are entering the realm of philosophy and theology - which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this thread - which was only to show that within the world that we know, creatures that are often touted as examples of poor design are not necessarily poor design when you consider the living world as a cohesive whole.The question goes back to why God would create creatures that have limits. I'll give you one answer from a theological perspective. If God allowed man to live forever - it wouldn't take long for the most evil men to completely rule the world. Morally corrupt men would have no problem "offing" anyone that got in their way - and soon they would be the only ones left.If you are really interested in this subject, I suggest you take a look at the link I provided earlier - if only to hear some of the answers on the other side.