| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Well Andy, I really don't know that much about any official ID "doctrine" or anything like that. I have just heard a very little about what they think (basically, simply that Evolution, and all the other aspects of the natural universe, are designed/created by a larger Creator [the God of the Holy Bible in my case]), and I thought, "Yeah, that's what I think too." So I can't tell you what formal, organized ID (if such exists) has to say about this, but I certainly have my own opinion (which is worth what you paid for it!) - apologies if I don't verbalize it clearly. I think that cruelty as we see it, like most disconnects between Science and the whole "larger deal" (Kingdom of God, Paradise, Nirvana, whatever), is an artifact of our tremendously limited viewpoint of things, both as human beings, and as human beings living at one particular point in Time. I think if we try to ascribe cruelty, or mercy, or any other such human quality to the "Intelligence" of ID, we're merely trying to pin it down to this limited viewpoint. In other words, it's all relative. So, while personally I do ascribe mercy, goodness, etc. to God, I also think I have very narrow or different criteria for those things compared to Him. But I didn't think that ID (s.s.) ascribes any quality to the Intelligence other than purpose or direction. Perhaps many years from now, all human procreation will be done outside the womb, so as to spare women the pain of childbirth. Will those folks think we were cruel to allow women to deliver in pain? I know this is not a perfect analogy, but maybe it works well enough. I don't think the pain of childbirth is considered cruel in this day and age; will people of the future feel that it's cruel when technology exists that allow women to avoid it? How many aspects of life in the past do we regard as barbaric today, when it was considered normal then? Surely people of the future will look at our times the same way. I just think that the same relativity of viewpoints exists between us humans, both here and now, and the "larger deal". At first I thought you were "having me on", as they say, since "cruelty" is not a property of any scientific study I'm aware of outside of Psychology, but I suppose that was your real point. I guess my short answer would be that I personally don't see where ID says anything about the cruelty or mercy of the Intelligence; maybe other IDers do. So I don't see how your example accomplished what you had hoped. But thanks for the exchange! F Andy Rindsberg wrote: > Just out of curiosity, Frank, how does the Intelligent Design hypothesis > deal with animal behavior that, if designed, could be interpreted as being > cruel? I'm not just talking about lions eating zebras here. I'd like an > explanation of predatory wasp behavior. The wasps capture and sting > caterpillars, paralyzing them with a toxin. The wasp then flies to its nest, > carrying the hapless caterpillar, and lays an egg in it before walling it > away in the dark. The egg hatches inside the caterpillar and, over a period > of days, eats it alive from the inside. For more details, consult the very > readable works of Henri Fabré. > > There is no evidence to suggest that the paralyzing venom acts as an > anaesthetic. To the contrary: Wasp stings hurt. And predatory wasps are > hardly uncommon; this sort of thing goes on all summer long in any garden. I > see no intelligence in the initiation of wasp behavior, but perhaps you do. > Can you explain these well-known observations in the context of the > Intelligent Design hypothesis? > > I hope this example clarifies how science can address the question of > Intelligent Design. > > Cheers, > Andy > > Andrew K. Rindsberg -- Frank K. Holterhoff MATRICuS Inc. Physical Design Engineer 570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101 972-221-1614 ext. 18 Lewisville, Texas 75067 fax: 972-420-6895 USA frank@matricus.com www.matricus.com
Partial index: