Here’s my take on the whole evolution vs. creationism
debate. Creationists insist that there
is an “intelligent designer” behind all living things; by this they mean a
supreme being that creates everything “whole cloth” almost instantly as a
celestial inventor, this despite the growing evidence on the nature of
evolution.
Looking at the history of inventing, I can’t find a single
invention that was created whole cloth from the mind of the inventor without
reference to something that came before it.
There is an evolutionary process at work in the design of all practical
artifacts produced by man throughout history. In each case, the most useful
objects and processes available are drawn upon for inspiration in the
development of the most functional new version of an idea.
This seems to be how nature works as well, creation is an
evolutionary progression. This does not
rule out some underlying or innate intelligence at work in the process. An innate intelligence does not portent a
supreme being; it may simply point to a lack of understanding of the nature of
intelligence. Who knows, intelligence may be a vestige of “god”, but only
through the continual search for truth will we approach illumination on that
matter.
Inventors apply intelligence to solving problems, but as I
look around at “creation” I find it difficult to accept on the face of it the
notion there is an intelligent designer at work in the formation of humans. As an inventor I must point out that, as it
concerns the development of human beings, this alleged intelligent designer was
less than generous in the attributes assigned to the “pinnacle of all creation.”
If I were an almighty inventor and had the benefit of all of
my previous works, there are a few innovations that I’d be remiss not to
include in my greatest creation. For one,
there is the regeneration of lost or damaged limbs. If I endowed a lowly newt and other creatures
with this potential, it would be a shame not to provide the same advantage to
my most ambitious creation. Regeneration
of limbs in newts occurs first by de-differentiation of adult cells into cells similar
to embryonic cells and then development of these cells into new tissue. It’s interesting to me, that the “intelligent
creator” left this task to its “creation,” through stem cell research, to use
its intelligence to do what the creator apparently ignored.
Then there is the question of flight. Here is another attribute that was left up to
the “creation” to realize, building on trial and error to achieve flight, applying
intelligence over the ages to discover the means. I imagine that more than a few early humans lost
their lives in an attempt to fly. First
by simply jumping off ledges and flapping their arms, or even wearing feathers
in imitation of birds; over time observations and refinements provided insights
into the mechanism of flight until a solution was finally achieved. So it turns
out, even human flight was evolutionary.
With the inevitability of death, mortality is especially
hard to face when we understand there is a possibility of immortality. Therefore, I would also endow my ultimate
creation with the potential for immortality as with the Hydra, a genus of
simple fresh-water animals whose cells continually divide allowing defects and
toxins to be "diluted-away"; it is thought that hydras do not undergo
aging. Then there is Turritopsis
nutricula a species of jellyfish that uses Tran differentiation to become younger
after sexual reproduction; this cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it potentially
immortal. I can’t think of a better
justification for having sex.
Of course, if we were made in the creator’s image, one would
expect that we would be endowed with the attribute of immortality. Some would argue the “creator” felt the
ability to be immortal would make humans to much like gods, or that immortality
should be reserved for those obedient servants for the “afterlife” as a gift
for their faithfulness, but these apologies do not reflect well on a caring and
loving god.
Looking beyond the innovations the creator neglected to
include in the pinnacle of creation, there are also the seemingly unforeseen
consequences of some of the final design choices left to chance. For instance, a fertilized egg in a woman can
implant itself in many different places in the reproductive system before it
reaches the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy
caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even today, in almost all cases, the pregnancy
must be aborted to save the life of the mother. Since a cavity exists between the ovary and
the fallopian tube one could argue this is a sign of a flawed design in the
reproductive system.
Also, the birth canal in females passes through the pelvis, if
the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening the baby cannot
be born naturally. Before the
development of the C-section, this could lead to the death of the mother, the
baby or both; an omnificent god would surely have caught these flaws and
corrected them immediately.
Further, there is a glaring defect in the human male whose
testes develop early within the abdomen; later during development they migrate
through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes weak points in the
abdominal wall where hernias can form; prior to current surgical techniques
complications from hernias usually resulted in death.
For me, these apparent blunders suggest an evolutionary
process at work, not an omniscient intelligent designer creating the world whole
cloth. I would suggest its not
intelligent design; it’s intelligence in the design. I think someday we may discover that what we
call intelligence may be an agent in evolution.
This treatise is not a repudiation of the existence of god per se; it
only calls into question the method of “creation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment