Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Some thoughts on David Attenborough on evil design in nature

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

He said in 2003:

My response is that when creationists talk about god creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, that’s going to make him blind. And I ask them, are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a god who’s full of mercy.

Note: Loa loa worm.

The obvious question is, why does Attenborough or anyone else think that the boy’s fate is noteworthy for any purpose or that he even has a fate? Let alone that it demonstrates something?

That is, if the boy is just an evolved primate, of whom some say there are far too many of us in the world, the critical question isn’t why this is happening but why Attenborough thinks anyone but the boy should care.

Not why they do care, but why they should. Why that’s somehow “right.” Put another way: Who told us we were naked? (Cf Gen 3:11)

The point of the question (God puts it to Adam and Eve when they attempt to make themselves clothes after doing something they know to be wrong) is that all judgements about what is right or wrong about the universe must come from beyond it. If Adam and Eve were merely animals, they would not have done wrong, known about it, or known that they were naked (= lacking a personal human identity).

If there is nothing beyond the material universe, judgments of right and wrong are no more informative than pan-hoots. If there is, Attenborough’s point is moot. That’s probably why he never fully committed himself to atheism. It actually creates more problems than it solves.

Note: Other, slightly different versions of this thought exist. This one is David Attenborough, 2003. “Wild, wild life.” Sydney Morning Herald, 25 March.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
My response is that when creationists talk about god creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, that’s going to make him blind. And I ask them, are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a god who’s full of mercy.
Typical claptrap. This kind of thinking results from (i) a failed personal perception of what Attenborough thinks God would be like and what God would do if there were a God, coupled with (ii) a simple failure of logic (if something is "evil" then it wasn't designed). Extremely naive. Extremely simplistic. The whole "bad design" argument is not so much an argument as it is a litmus test of whether someone is thinking clearly, which Attenborough clearly was not.Eric Anderson
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
A nicely measured and cogent post, scordova, if I may say so. It lays the matter out well, notably, the want of a more plausible option.Axel
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
#4 "but it then raises the question why does the intelligently designed world look so cursed? " Compared to what?nightlight
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
And I ask them, are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a god who’s full of mercy.
Agreed, it seems to correspond more with the idea that the Earth is a cursed place to live.
cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; Gen 3
The world looks intelligently designed to me, even the parasites which God has made and which God intelligently designed in the plagues of Egypt which killed many first born sons. The celebrated Bacterial Flagellum of ID also has propelled agents of suffering and death in humans.... It grieves my heart that the Lord has expressed such fury against us. We cannot understand the Lord's fury against humanity. It seems so disproportionate to our offenses.
For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span[c] is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you? ... Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us, and for as many years as we have seen evil. Pslam 90 (by Moses)
from Exodus 4:11
the Lord said to him, “Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?
Blindness by parasites isn't mercy! Mercy from God is found elsewhere (in heaven through Jesus, not Earth), not in parasites or this curses that seem in great abundance along with the few blessing of sun and rain... The Old Testament is a never ending litany of God's harsh dealings with humanity, harsh enough that it would almost make me an atheist, but it always seemed to have a ring of truth when I look at the natural world -- nature looks intelligently designed, but also a cursed design. I grieve for the mother and father of the boy, and the boy himself. God's curses on humanity are beyond comprehension in their cruelty. The design of life says there is a supreme intelligence behind the creation of life, but it then raises the question why does the intelligently designed world look so cursed? I don't like the answers in Genesis any more than any one else (that God would be so cruel to His creation), but I accept it as true. I may not like it, but it makes more sense of the world than any other explanation I've heard. Of course, everything I said one is free to disbelieve. If one accepts ID, one is confronted with the problem of malicious designs (like the Bacterial Flagellum of parasites). If one disbelieves Design, and disbelieves God, then one faces other problems.... No worldview is free of complications. I accept that God has intelligently designed malicious parasites. I don't like it, but I accept it, but I also accept the claim of Jesus being the avenue toward eternal mercy out of the cursed Earth that is passing away. Were it not for Jesus, all I would have left would be Genesis 3 for a worldview:
cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; Gen 3
scordova
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Genesis 1 says He created plants, the first living things, with the seeds in them. Why would He do that unless He expected them to die[?]
Actually, because He wanted them to reproduce. Many kinds of plants do not have to die in order to accomplish this, and will thrive quite well alongside their descendants.EvilSnack
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Very punchy. But sane? No. Who are you to rubbish 3 to 4000 years of Judaeo-Christian wisdom concerning the Fall and its effects, on the basis of an apparent botanical anomaly in Genesis? We all know there's more to God than 'gentle Jesus, meek and mild,' from his minatory diatribes against the legalistic politico-religious frauds, but you worship your brutish, nihlistic, Christian God .... and see where it gets you. Take a wild guess. Here's a clue: you won't need winter clothes. But you will feel very wimpy.Axel
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Typical blind evolutionist thought - they don't understand the harmful designs therefore they can ignore all the super complex designs. Typical blind Christian thought that God has only mushy, good feelings, "all loving." What this Christian though fails to come to grasp with is that God destroyed the world with a flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. A thoughtful Christian understanding, which is generally quite hard to find, would counter that God's house has many rooms and the universe was designed to fill them. Therefore God did not create one generation of people in a universe that lasts for billions of years, but created a cycle of life and death that could take thousands, or millions of years to fill all the rooms in his house. Yes God created death, pain and suffering. Genesis 1 says he created plants, the first living things, with the seeds in them. Why would he do that unless he expected them to die. An no, man's sin did not bring death into the world. God created plants before man. So evolutionists get over it. The beauty and death are part of a plan because life on earth was always meant to be temporary. Wimpy Christians take your blinders off. God is the creator of all life, and if it does not suit God he will destroy it. Jesus is the vine and all branches that do not bare fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.Peter
February 16, 2014
February
02
Feb
16
16
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply