Everyone who lives long enough is likely to experience back pain. And the cause isn’t just aging. We have evolution to blame for a spine that’s an engineering nightmare. Cheddar Explores how our spines changed to accommodate human bipedalism.
But the real villain is hands and opposable thumbs, right? They’re part and parcel of all the bad stuff humans do. The back pain is incidental.
Naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is a religion that requires us to believe some strange things.
More on bipedality/bipedalism: Paleontologist: Humans walked on two legs from the beginning Carol Ward: It seems to be a behavior that was present in some of the earliest members of our branch of the family tree. It represented what was really the initial major adaptive change from any apelike creature that came before us.
Researchers: Supernova prompted humans to walk upright Funny, if bipedalism originated in a global catastrophe, that it never occurred to any other primate to resolve the problem by becoming fully bipedal. But keep thinking. Resist groupthink.
Bipedalism: Regulatory area cent.com/intelligent-design/bipedalism-regulatory-area-missing-in-humans/” target=”another”>missing in humans
Researcher: To Understand Human Bipedalism, Stop Assuming “A Chimpanzee Starting Point”
Rough terrain caused humans to start walking upright
Early bipedalism walked no straight line
We’ve also heard that bipedalism developed so we could hit each other. Or carry infants. Or scarce resources. Or save energy. Or cool down. But mainly so we could have our hands free for whatever. (Saving eneregy and cooling down don’t really count here because lots of other methods would have worked; they just wouldn’t have freed the hands at the same time.)
See also “I’m Walkin’, Yes Indeed I’m Walkin’” But Not Because It’s Necessarily a Better Way to Get Around
Also, Design perspectives and the physiology of walking
Follow UD News at Twitter!
The false Darwinian belief that humans gradually evolved to an upright posture, and that this led to current back problems, is a false belief that led to much medical malpractice:
Despite much over the top hype from Darwinists, Darwinists simply have no evidence that bipedalism gradually evolved:
Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy displayed by Darwinists
Here is an anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy
Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been found since the ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not possibly have walked upright.
Further notes on the abrupt appearance of man,
Besides misdiagnosing the real cause of modern back pains, Darwinian presuppositions have also led to many other instances of medical malpractice:
The plain truth of the matter is that Darwinists, despite their over the top hype, have no clue how the ‘biological form’ of the human body, (nor how the biological form’ of any other organism), could have possibly come about.
Shoot, advances in quantum biology have now proven that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic foundation, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation to properly understand molecular biology in the first place:
Further notes:
I had surgery for scoliosis when I was 17 to correct an S curve with two 45 degree curves. The doctors split me from stem to stern and bolted a metal rod to my spine, from base of neck to just above the hip. They then used bone chips out of my hip to fuse my vertebrae together. I grew three inches during a seven hour surgery.
I then spent three months in a Stryker bed, requiring nurses to flip me from my back to my stomach to prevent bed sores. I then spent three months in a body cast.
Since the surgery I have had recurring back problems that lay me up for a few days each time. I can’t walk long distances, jump in a pool, play sports, or even rake leaves. So, if I am asked if my spine is poorly designed, I have to say yes.
@Brother Brian, a club foot does not prove that feet are poorly designed, and someone born deaf does not prove that ears are poorly designed; likewise your back problems do not prove that the spine is poorly designed.
Umm, Brian, your back wasn’t designed. Your back is what happened as the result of Darwinian evolution over thousands of generations.
A
I am not talking about all spines, only about 10% of female spines and 6% of male spines. I am not an engineer, but I expect failure rates of between 6 and 10% might be considered to be the result of poor design.
Brother Brian:
Until you can show that rate was present in the originally designed humans all you have is a strawman, as usual.
BB: “So, if I am asked if my spine is poorly designed, I have to say yes.”
Poorly designed is still designed. If you were asked if your spine could have possibly evolved, the answer to that question is not “my spine is poorly designed so it must have evolved”. The ‘scientific’ answer to that question is that your spine, nor any other part of your body, could have possibly come about by random unguided processes so it must be designed.
One of the main self-refuting flaws in Darwinian reasoning is that they presuppose design, and even presuppose theology, in their argumentation and never get around to the business of actually proving that it is scientifically possibly for any given biological structure to come about by unguided Darwinian processes.
Of related note, it is not surprising that Darwinists are vitally dependent on (bad) theological presuppositions in order to try to argue for Darwinian evolution. ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our ‘made in the image of God’ minds to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science is simply impossible without those basic Christian presuppositions,,,
Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it.
Atheists insist that they strictly follow methodological naturalism and that they do not need Theology to do science. That claim is absurd. Following methodological naturalism as the supposed ‘ground rule for science’, as atheists insist that they are doing, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself:
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Bornagain77 @ 8
So you agree that the human spine is a poor design? Then tell us why an all-knowing and all-powerful designer would design such a vital part of human anatomy with a 6-10% failure rate when even a human designer would strive for as close to a zero percent failure rate as possible?
I just would like to point out that I am missing cartilage in my lower lumbar number five that causes my back to slip out of place and I inherited it from my mom
It slipped out and I was carried out of the gym like a giant cockroach when I was 14 many many years ago when it popped out after I dove for a basketball
The muscles in my back wrapped around it and have managed to keep it from slipping
It wasn’t until recently that I tweaked my back and I have had issues trying to sit
By the way I am not comparing my problems to BB
That would be douchy of me, I would not certainly minimize his issues with his back which I would hope anybody with those problems would be able to recover or minimize the amount of pain that they are in and I am terribly sorry about that
But back to my point, This vital organ or part of our body will outlast probably every piece of equipment even with its defects that we have ever created here on this planet.
My shitty ass back has outlasted five cars in my life every single computer I’ve ever owned every single TV I have ever owned and every piece of electronica equipment I have ever owned. All of the devices I have ever owned throughout my entire life are all gone but I still have my back and it still fully functional and I am 41 years old
When people complain about the body parts that we have we never look at how long it really lasts and the fact that it regenerates and that none of the designed pieces of equipment that saturate our daily life ever really out last it
Our backs are subject truly incredible amounts of stress day in and day out something none of the equipment that we design are equally subject to
Yet our back bounces back from this
Our body which is so poorly designed always seems to outlast all of our well-designed pieces of equipment that we have
And here is another thing our bodies are subject to diseases they are subject to external flaws and environmental effects, that all can cause catastrophic failure, but what in life is there where that is not true
Every designed piece of equipment is subject to catastrophic failure every piece anywhere is subject to catastrophic failure
And what I see is when people argue that an all powerful and all knowing God would create something you all immediately assume that it’s going to be 100% perfect (which doesn’t exact and adaptable is better then prefect in my eyes because implies it can no longer change.) And also can never fail
If you want something never to fail become an electron or some other sub atomic particle
And certainly don’t live in this universe because there’s a lot going on in this universe that can cause a lot of problems
But if you want to be perfect and you don’t want to fail then you’re more than likely going to be inanimate and indestructible
But if you want to be animated, have an opinion, and exist, Then these bodies seem to do a pretty damn good job of that
And despite all the remarkable things that could possibly happen to us we seem to outlast almost all of the equipment and all of the things that we design
And the only thing that seems to outlast us are things made of giant inanimate slabs of stone, they seem to be perfect and they will do anything more then sit there and erode away
And I’ll leave you with this we can design a particle collider but we can’t design a little single living cell
I really think we need to stop thinking we have an opinion on what is considered poor design when it comes to life
Brother Brian @ 6,
“It is now recognized widely that back problems generally are not due to maladaption caused by upright posture, but rather to abuses of the body that are common in modern life. This includes lack of exercise and poor posture, stress, and the requirement that one be in unusual positions for long periods of time, such as bending forward on an assembly line or on a computer. In short, anything which decreases normal lordosis causes problems. Other major factors that lead to back problems are bone deterioration that can affect the back, smoking (which contributes to osteoporosis), and obesity.17
One indication that modern society is largely to blame for back problems is the finding that physicians in Third World countries rarely report chronic back pain.” https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwinism/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled-researchers/
[posted by Born Again]
So the 6-10% failure rate is a result of misuse rather than poor design.
There’s a basic metrology problem here. Measurements require a baseline. We can’t say that humans have an unusual amount of back problems because we don’t know anything about back pain in other mammals. They don’t complain about occasional pain. They just get on with life.
The only thing we know objectively is that humans have an unusual amount of whining.
You simply can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe it. At the beginning of comment 8 I specifically stated that
And yet, even though the argument from Darwinists is self-refuting in that it presupposes design, even theology, in its premises, in post 9 right after I stated that, Seversky does not miss a beat and instantly, right after I pointed out the self-refuting nature of their argument, reiterates the self-refuting Theological argument from Darwinists as such:
You simply can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe supposedly intelligent people could make arguments this bad.
I guess, since Darwinists have ZERO scientific evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can produce the intelligently designed back they now want to argue Theological nuances as to why God allows evil to exist in our world? Perhaps they are weighing the Theological arguments to see if they should now become Christians?
But before we get into that, it is important to reiterate that, as pointed out in post 1, “The false Darwinian belief that humans gradually evolved to an upright posture, and that this led to current back problems, is a false belief that led to much medical malpractice”. Whereas presupposing the intelligent design of the back has led to the successful treatment of many people with chronic back problems:
This back doctor agrees that the spine is “very intelligently designed” and that it is misuse, not some type of Darwinian maladaptation, that is the root cause of the vast majority of modern back problems:
But since Seversky, and BB, apparently want to argue Theological nuances instead of science, (perhaps they are considering becoming Christians?), let’s go over the theological nuances of their ‘argument from evil’.
One of the main arguments from atheists is what is known as ‘the argument from evil’. Basically, name whatever particular evil may be troubling you and then argue that God would never allow that particular evil to exist. Yet the fatal flaw with the argument from evil is that in order for evil to even exist in the first place then an absolute standard of perfection must first exist that has been departed from. As C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, stated,
Thus the atheists ‘argument from evil’ fails precisely because it is impossible for evil to even exist unless there is first an perfect standard moral goodness that had been departed from.
In effect, the atheist, in his ‘argument from evil’, presupposes the reality of the very thing, i.e. the perfection of God, that he is trying to prove the nonexistence of. As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”
As well, in his theologically based ‘argument from evil’, the atheist is also basically claiming that we should currently be living in a heavenly paradise that is free from any sort of evil whatsoever.
Yet Theists, especially Christians, have NEVER argued that we currently live in a heavenly paradise that is completely free from any evil whatsoever. In fact, Christians have ALWAYS maintained that we are currently living in a ‘fallen world’. A fallen world in which we are called to overcome evil with good.
In fact, Jesus himself overcame evil with good: As theologian James Stewart stated in one of his sermons, “He (Jesus) did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
Thus the atheist’s argument from evil fails on at least two different levels. First it presupposes a standard of moral perfection that has been departed from. And secondly it falsely presupposes what no Christian has ever held as being true. Namely it falsely presupposes that we currently should be living in a perfect heavenly paradise instead of living in a fallen world that we actually are living in.
Here are few more related notes on the the atheist’s Theologically based, and thus self refuting, ‘argument from evil’
Verse:
Seversky:
Why are atheists such desperate fools? Does anyone think that extant human backs were the originally designed human backs? Apparently foolish and childish atheists do.
Humans couldn’t design a spine and then integrate it into an animal. Cloning has a HUGE failure rate and that is a human design. ALL cars break down eventually- 100% failure rate predicted there.
Is there anything man makes that doesn’t require our intervention to maintain and repair?
Brother Brian:
Everything we build will fail sooner or later. That is a 100% failure rate.
@ET
Is there anything man makes that doesn’t require our intervention to maintain and repair?
Ya a pyramid, they seem to strict around, also really big stone walls like in China :-/ budumcha
AaronS1958
“Evolution doesn’t care if our spines or hearts or thyroid or whatever fail in our sixties”
Yes, the above is the argument by poetry. (sigh)
Evolution doesn’t “care” about anything. It doesn’t “select” for longevity. It doesn’t “select” for anything. Evolution is a euphemism for “whatever happens”. It’s not an explanation. It’s not science.
Andrew
Brother Brian:
Please reference that or admit that you made it all up. And please reference a scientific theory of evolution or admit it doesn’t exist.
AaronS1978- The pyramids need maintenance and the Great Wall has been repaired many times.
Asauber at 18
“Yes, the above is the argument by poetry. (sigh)”
🙂 Ha Ha Ha
You might also appreciate the ‘argument from mass unintelligibility’
Brother Brian:
The point is evos don’t have a mechanism capable of producing bodies. You lose.
“You might also appreciate the ‘argument from mass unintelligibility’”
BA77, I do appreciate it. It’s a breathtaking piece of modern art. 😉
Andrew
Seversky, when atheist scientists, such as your good self, talk about anything created by Almighty God, they must bear in mind that the subject in point, indeed, the whole of Creation, was subject to the extremely deleterious effects of the Fall of man from God’s grace – so, this side of etermity, the original design in all its splendour of everything, including such twerpy little things, at the microscopic level, as the E-Coli virus, we may only ever catch the faintest glimpse of, this side of eternity. On the other side of eternity, whether in heaven or in hell, we are unlikely to find such matters of the remotest interest.
So, all this twaddle atheists dwell, on is – predictably enough – ‘pie in the sky’. If artifacts of our design are comparably marred, and we could get them working at the sub-optimal level God’s creation does, at present, i.e. after the Fall, the designer would deserve a lot better than a Noble prize, even though the perfectly-functioning artifact would inevitably be a piffling thing in comparison with the natural world we are born into, and its seemingly-infinite cornucopia of most subtle designs.
Your #21 :
“Materialists assert that an unbridgeable explanatory gap—how immaterial abstract thought can arise from matter—can be crossed by multiplying the things that aren’t explainable.”
It gets madder and madder. I don’t know how they get away with it. Pleonastic ! ‘Mass unintelligibility ! (I wondered what on earth that could mean, but it is not necessarily satirical, is it ?) Just wonderful !
I’ve long believed the only way to get through to A/Mats is by deriding them, and I do suspect it’s been paying off – from before my catching on, of course.
Axel
I guess when poor evidence, irrational logic and prayer fail to convince the A/mats, deriding is the next best thing. 🙂
Brother Brian:
No. We do NOT use your arguments.
Your #26 Brother Brian
… ‘guess’ being the operative word.
Axel
I think “blind faith” is a more accurate term, but “guess” works just as well.
Yes, blind faith and a-mats go together. They are inseparable.
@ET
“ET
July 22, 2019 at 9:05 am
AaronS1978- The pyramids need maintenance and the Great Wall has been repaired many times.”
Oh I know, My point is though for anything to last or have a function that continues to have a nearly 100% success rate you effectively have to be a stone.
there are so many different factors in our environment that can change the outcome of a design
And when we argue about whether something is a good design or a bad design we often don’t take these factors into account and how much they impact
When we judge the design of life we are selves never seem to recognize the fact that we are living organisms part of the exact same lifecycle judging whether it is a good sign or a bad design
My problem when people argue against life being poorly designed is the fact that we are comparing apples to oranges and we are judging things by a standard that we our selves are subpar on to begin with
Like I had ended my last quote we can design a particle collider but we can’t design a single celled organism
We are literally comparing apples to oranges our designs pale in comparison to living organisms in every which way shape and form
Yet we believe that we can say this is a bad design I don’t think we are smart enough yet to make that comment.
Axel @ 24
I’m very flattered but I’m not actually a scientist of any sort, although I am for all practical purposes an atheist.
The Fall from Grace argument makes no sense at all. If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Christian version then He would have known exactly how Adam and Eve would behave when faced with temptation. Your God doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t overlook anything, He doesn’t occasionally get things wrong so the only explanation for Adam and Eve’s surrender to temptation is that they were behaving exactly as they were designed to behave and God knew it. So how in the name of fairness and justice can they be blamed for that and, much worse, what possible justification can there be for visiting punishment on their descendants in perpetuity?
It’s true that we can only judge design according to the standards we have set for what we design. It’s possible a more advanced intelligence might be designing for purposes of which we are as yet unaware. But unless you can provide examples or explanations of what they might be, all we have are our own standards to measure what is good or bad design.
I smell a strawman
That God would have known all possible outcomes. Or perhaps you just don’t know what you are talking about.
You have no idea what transpired. You are just flailing about in your clueless atheistic way. And the sad part is you have yourself convinced that you are making a coherent argument.
What blame? It is what it is. And it cannot be undone. Now it is up to us. Liberals are always thinking about entitlements. And they always get belligerent when they get disappointed.
It’s like if someone that was really super rich gave you a huge mansion, a lot of money and you just partied it all away. And along the way you and your lady totaled the mansion such that it doesn’t exist any more. There isn’t any blame to be passed down along with your genes. There are just stories of this fantastic place. There isn’t any punishment. You just have to make due without a massive handout. Sure you can be upset that your parents squandered it. But they did tell you that about a way to get back to that lifestyle- the path to Heaven. So which would you focus on- being upset or doing what it takes to get back to it?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Extant organisms and their features are not the designed organisms and features. Extant organisms and their features are the result of many generations worth of genetic entropy. And it just so happens that it drives research that leads to a better understanding
Seversky @ 32
I have no insider knowledge of God’s purposes, that’s for sure. But it seems plain to me that once all is said and done — after pure grace has been fully bestowed and pure justice rightly meted out — moving forward and throughout all eternity, no free-will creature is going be able to convince himself that he is right and God is wrong. IOW, our current plight is nothing if not illustrative.
The assumption that all physically-ambulatory humans walk on two legs is untrue, or at least, so says 60 Minutes Australia…
Remote village where people walk on all fours
Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this:
As any first year seminary student can see, the fatal flaw in that argument is, of course, the presupposition from atheists that God had no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world. Yet, as the “Beatific Vision” demonstrates, God has ample reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world in that in allowing evil to temporarily exist, (much like the way we ourselves willingly suffer hardships in our own lives for a short while so as to bring about a greater good in our own lives), God is, via temporary suffering, bringing about a much greater good in this world. Thus, the atheist’s presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world is simply wrong.
Verse:
An engineer addresses the, “God would only make perfect designs” argument against ID, as follows:
– there is no such thing as a perfect design, all designs involve tradeoffs to optimize some set of criteria.
– those criteria may include simplicity, cost, time, purpose, starting point, and other non-technical features.
– without knowing what the original specifications were, the design cannot be meaningfully assessed.
– any design can usually be improved in some way or other, but designers usually stop at “good enough”.
– as time goes on, a given design may no longer be optimum for changing conditions.
Some of these points may apply to the human backbone and its supposed design flaws.
As an added note, Genesis does not say God made creation perfect; as a good designer, he just calls it “very good”.
The English philosopher John Stuart Mill set out the arguments against the concept of God as a designer in one of his Three Essays On Religion:
Bornagain77 @ 32
No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.
Yes, I know that is the standard apologist explanation for evil, that the existence of evil is, for some unexplained reason, necessary for the achievement of some greater good. Unfortunately, that defense founders on two questions. First, why can’t this omniscient God simply explain why it is necessary and second – and more serious – why can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God bring about this greater good without having to inflict such vast – and it is vast – amounts of suffering on the creatures He professes to love above all things?
For crying out loud that is exactly what you are repeatedly arguing. How your head does not explode from such logical contradictions I have no idea.
seversky:
And we were noting that is only your ignorant opinion and you have an agenda.
How many times does it have to be explained to you?
First the strawman- compared to an eternity in Heaven there isn’t any such thing as “vast suffering”. We LEARN from an imperfect world. We WANTED to be the holders of knowledge. And WE cause the suffering. You have to be quite the desperate ignoramus to try pin that on God.
The reward justifies the means.
“In the beginning” we didn’t want Heaven on Earth and opted for knowledge over blissful ignorance. This is what has come of that.
Sev
That is something I have never understood. Why do we need evil to appreciate good? We don’t need pedophile priests to appreciate someone helping an elderly person across the street. We don’t need the holocaust or the crusades to appreciate respect for other religions. We didn’t need Columbine or Sandy Hook to appreciate the sacrifice that teachers make.
LoL!:
We don’t. Why do atheists like erecting so many strawmen?
The devil needs them to get people off of religion.
The devil needs them to sow seeds of doubt.
You guys don’t seem to know much of anything about the religion you are trying to bash.
It is literally the same principle as the absence of light means the presence of darkness. that’s why it is constantly reference between good and evil light and darkness
Without one you would only be surrounded by the other
You never know what the other is like the concept of good is not something that exists without the concept of evil there is an interplay between the two
You have to have something to compare it to just like the difference between free will and determinism for you to know that you have one you have to have the other and vice a versa
AaronS1978@45, I understand the concept, but do you really think that God couldn’t establish a system that allows us to appreciate good without inflicting evil? I am pretty sure that I can appreciate respect for others without killing millions of Jews, shooting up schools, killing people from a hotel room in Vegas. Admittedly, juxtaposing vile, evil acts makes it easier to teach us the value of “good”, but why would an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God have to resort to that. I’m not trying to be a jerk, this is one of the pivotal issues about “God“ that swung me towards atheism. Well, that and the lack of compelling evidence, and the luxury of sleeping late on Sundays. 🙂
Oh my.
How can we not make fun of people for blaming God for we have sown?
Yes, ignorance and the inability to think lead people to atheism. You are a fine example of that. Thank you.
It is the height of insanity for atheists, on the one hand, to adamantly maintain that all morality is subjective and illusory, and then in direct contradiction to that foundational belief they hold as being true, on the other hand insist that their personal sense of objective morality is so refined that it is good enough to overturn 2000 years of Christian theodicy. As Dr. Egnor stated, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”
And to repeat what CS Lewis, a former atheist, stated,
Thus the atheist’s ‘argument from evil’ fails precisely because it is impossible for evil to even exist unless there is first an perfect standard of moral goodness that had been departed from.
Specifically, in their argument from evil atheists maintain that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering”
But again this is self defeating position for the atheists to be in. As David Wood puts it,, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.
Bottom line, if objective morality really does exist, as the atheist must necessarily presuppose in his ‘argument from evil’, (and as he must also necessarily presuppose in any argument about theodicy that he may wish to make), then God necessarily exists:
A few more notes
And again, I hold Christian theodicy to be far and away the most coherent theodicy of any Theistic tradition. To repeat, Jesus himself overcame evil with good: As theologian James Stewart stated in one of his sermons, “He (Jesus) did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
Verses:
Well said, bornagain77 and Dr. Egnor! You are right. To “them” there isn’t any evil, just survival and reproduction. There are things that may help with that, things that are neutral and things that hinder it. They just are. Whatever gets you there is all
goodevolutionary acceptable. 😎Are you alive? and Have you reproduced? Are the only two questions that matter.
So to admit that evil exists means that something is getting through.
ET, “To “them” there isn’t any evil, just survival and reproduction. ”
It is actually much worse than that for Darwinian atheists. Not only is atheistic materialism in and of itself completely amoral, but when coupled with Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism,, i.e. “survival and reproduction”,,,
,,, when the amorality of atheistic materialism is coupled with Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism, then the amorality inherent in atheistic materialism actually becomes downright anti-morality. Self sacrificial morally noble behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s survival of the fittest’ mechanism. Whereas, on the other hand, selfishness, greed, (not to mention blind, pitiless, indifference to the suffering of others), is apparently rewarded. As you know, Dawkin’s himself had a book entitled “The Selfish Gene”.
Thus, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, which thank God it isn’t, then the evil that would actually be present in this world would be very much comparable to the unimaginable evil that is present in hell itself. ,,, If Darwinists had to actually face such evil as their theory actually entails, Darwinists would be begging to have this world back.
As to theodicy in general, I have always found this following quote to be exceptionally powerful.
Actually I really can’t conceive of any other system outside of it the reason why is the same concept behind the blind leading the blind and to be terribly honest with you there’s a lot to be learned from evil which I hate to say that but it’s true. But the funny part is the very thing that you speak of does exist at least in Christian theology and it’s called heaven
And the other is called hell and I’m stuck in the middle with you ha ha
Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right and I’m stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry I hope I got that song stuck in everybody’s head
Ah, the quality of design argument. One of my favorite Darwinist arguments. It’s just so damn easy to turn around on them. Watch this . . .
Premise I: If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then good design must be evidence for it.
Premise II: The amount of good (brilliant, really) design in life easily outweighs the bad.
Conclusion: The quality of life’s design provides more evidence for than against the intelligent design position. The I.D. position is strengthened.
And let’s not overlook how much poor lifestyle choices damage our bodies. So much so-called bad design is really little more than improper personal care. If you stuff your body with garbage and spend far too much time sitting on your butt, then yeah, chances are your back is going to mess up. It’s like buying an i8, never changing its water or oil, and then blaming BMW for “bad design” when the motor goes wonky. I’m 31 years old. I’ve lived a (mostly) healthy lifestyle. My body works fine, with minimal aches and pains. That’s what happens when your treat your body with respect, not like it’s a garbage disposal.
As for our Darwinist friends . . . I’d tell them to go back to where they came from, but traveling back to the 19th century is impossible. I guess we’re stuck with them.
https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/why-evolution-doesnt-eliminate-god-part-1?utm_source=Catholic%20Answers%20Daily&utm_campaign=0264027be1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_19_10_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6b4f9e3af2-0264027be1-213039785&mc_cid=0264027be1&mc_eid=7a9c50f131
I got this about the exact same time this post hit but they make a few good points. Such as random mutation does presuppose a design system it’s worth a listen to
Bornagain77 @ 41
You’ve lost me. Exactly what logical contradiction are we talking about?
Jammer @ 53
That would be fine if we were just talking about LGM (Little Green Men) designers, extraterrestrial intelligences somewhat more advanced than we are but far from God-like in their knowledge and powers. But we aren’t. And we all know that we aren’t. We are talking about the all-knowing, all-powerful God of Christianity. Reconciling poor design with a being who shouldn’t have to do that is the problem.
You may be relatively fit and healthy now but that may not always be the case. We have a genetic code which is prone to mutation. In some cases, that can lead to cancers. Some cancers occur in parts of the body where they are often not detected until they are well-established or even spread. As I noted before, the human reproductive system has a natural miscarriage rate of 15-50%, billions of lives cut short at the very earliest stages of development. There are a range of genetic disorders apart from cancers. There are auto-immune diseases where the immune system attacks the body it is supposed to be protecting. Need I go on?
Not the best choice of words in the current political situation although I’m sure it goes back a long ways.. No doubt the Native Americans felt the same about our colonial forebears when they came in and took the land they had lived on for thousands of years.
Seversky at 55, I anticipated your response. See post 48 for a more complete explanation of the irresolvable contradiction in your worldview.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-human-back-is-we-are-told-an-evolutionary-disaster/#comment-681350
Seversky:
Reconciling you with a thinking human is a problem
LoL! The genetic code is NOT prone to mutation. And we were designed with the ability to adapt and evolve to fill niches so genetic change was designed.
Seversky is obviously a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda. Extant humans were NOT the intelligently designed humans. Seversky is obviously just a dolt.