Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

TimCallahan

Philosopher
T
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
6,293
Whether one sees intelligent design in terms of old earth creationism or sees the hand of a divine architect behind to workings of evolution, as in theistic evolutionist belief, I see a real problem with mass extinctions. They're sloppy and wasteful. Consider the Permian extinction. A theistic evolutionist would likely argue that God had us in mind when He started the evolutionary ball rolling. Logically, then, the dominance of the synapsids, the mammal-like reptiles, in the Permian should have led directly into the age of mammals and the evolution of intelligent mammals, like us. Instead, the Permian extinction very nearly wiped out the mammal-like reptiles and dis placed them as the dominant megafauna. So, by the time they had produced mammals, these mammals had to spend the next 120 million years under the feet of the dinosaurs - until another mass extinction, at the end of the Cretaceous period, gave them the opportunity to reclaim dominance.

This all seems rather haphazard and chaotic. I'm interested in hearing from any believers - Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other - as to how mass extinctions fit into their idea of an intelligent designer. Is this designer capricious? Does he get bored over the eons and change his mind a lot? If the designer is not capricious, how does one explain mass extinctions?
 
TimCallahan said:
Whether one sees intelligent design in terms of old earth creationism or sees the hand of a divine architect behind to workings of evolution, as in theistic evolutionist belief, I see a real problem with mass extinctions. They're sloppy and wasteful. Consider the Permian extinction. A theistic evolutionist would likely argue that God had us in mind when He started the evolutionary ball rolling. Logically, then, the dominance of the synapsids, the mammal-like reptiles, in the Permian should have led directly into the age of mammals and the evolution of intelligent mammals, like us. Instead, the Permian extinction very nearly wiped out the mammal-like reptiles and dis placed them as the dominant megafauna. So, by the time they had produced mammals, these mammals had to spend the next 120 million years under the feet of the dinosaurs - until another mass extinction, at the end of the Cretaceous period, gave them the opportunity to reclaim dominance.

This all seems rather haphazard and chaotic. I'm interested in hearing from any believers - Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other - as to how mass extinctions fit into their idea of an intelligent designer. Is this designer capricious? Does he get bored over the eons and change his mind a lot? If the designer is not capricious, how does one explain mass extinctions?
Click to expand...

I am not a believer but do not feel it is necessary to believe in order to examine the concepts you are speaking about TimCallahan.

I think that if there was intelligence behind the inception of the idea and then construction of that idea as the physical universe were true, and the idea also that the construction was for the purpose that the intelligent consciousness then experiences that creation in the first person - through the individual forms, then it wouldn't really matter that from this process new improved forms could be created and experienced through.

When I look at this universe and see what it is at face value and ask myself why if intelligent creation experiences it consciously through form, does it evolve new forms and to what end such experience is ultimately trying to provide for the intelligence and what might that intelligence 'see' in relation to itself and what can be achieved with this physical universe, I 'see' (in relation to earth) that the forms changed which enabled consciousness better equipment in which to explore - through 'the great apes' and such form was very good at turning elements into functional tools which are then used to create animated devices.

Ultimately space is the final frontier but the human form is ill equipped as a tool for consciousness to further explore in this way through - but the human form is ideal for possibly creating something far more robust through.

Some machine forms which are capable of housing that consciousness. The consciousness wants to experience the larger reality (off planet) and is using the human form to achieve this.
 
Navigator said:
I am not a believer but do not feel it is necessary to believe in order to examine the concepts you are speaking about TimCallahan.

I think that if there was intelligence behind the inception of the idea and then construction of that idea as the physical universe were true, and the idea also that the construction was for the purpose that the intelligent consciousness then experiences that creation in the first person - through the individual forms, then it wouldn't really matter that from this process new improved forms could be created and experienced through.

When I look at this universe and see what it is at face value and ask myself why if intelligent creation experiences it consciously through form, does it evolve new forms and to what end such experience is ultimately trying to provide for the intelligence and what might that intelligence 'see' in relation to itself and what can be achieved with this physical universe, I 'see' (in relation to earth) that the forms changed which enabled consciousness better equipment in which to explore - through 'the great apes' and such form was very good at turning elements into functional tools which are then used to create animated devices.

Ultimately space is the final frontier but the human form is ill equipped as a tool for consciousness to further explore in this way through - but the human form is ideal for possibly creating something far more robust through.

Some machine forms which are capable of housing that consciousness. The consciousness wants to experience the larger reality (off planet) and is using the human form to achieve this.
Click to expand...

Try as I might, I can't figure out how this post answers the questions I've posed regarding mass extinctions. What exactly are you talking about?
 
TimCallahan said:
I see a real problem with mass extinctions. They're sloppy and wasteful.
Click to expand...

That's perfectly consistent with the God of the Abrahamic religions. Hell, their religious texts explicitly attribute their God with causing a mass extinction, when it would have been far more efficient just to kill off the people he wanted to get rid of directly, like the way he supposedly killed off all the firstborn sons in Egypt.

(Although, the mass extinction described was supposedly done with a flood, which is inconsistent with known mass extinctions).
 
TimCallahan said:
Try as I might, I can't figure out how this post answers the questions I've posed regarding mass extinctions. What exactly are you talking about?
Click to expand...

"Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?"

I am offering an answer to the question. I assume the question is metaphorical.
 
Brian-M said:
That's perfectly consistent with the God of the Abrahamic religions. Hell, their religious texts explicitly attribute their God with causing a mass extinction, when it would have been far more efficient just to kill off the people he wanted to get rid of directly, like the way he supposedly killed off all the firstborn sons in Egypt.

(Although, the mass extinction described was supposedly done with a flood, which is inconsistent with known mass extinctions).
Click to expand...

There is some cherry picking perhaps going on in this answer Brian-M.

The impression I get from the story is that this far-seeing god was sorry for creating such a particular form because consciousness was not so easily directed/controllable within the form - it had too much independence and was too self centered to see its connection to the whole process and as such - on global scales could make a whole mess of things.

I get the impression that the character (god) made a mistake and tried to rectify that by washing it away. More like a scientist who creates a monster and then decides the extreme thing to do to kill that monster even if the whole 'town' must be destroyed as a consequence.
 
Why bother with mass extinctions at all? Why not just create man, say from dust ;)

Tim, what is it you are trying to achieve by asking this question? You know the responses you are going to get from creationist is either,

a) Dinosaurs didn't exist, or if they did they got wiped out by the flood (which was punishment from God - so technical not a 'mass extinction')
b) God works in mysteries ways and who are you to question the almighty
 
Navigator said:
I get the impression that the character (god) made a mistake and tried to rectify that by washing it away. More like a scientist who creates a monster and then decides the extreme thing to do to kill that monster even if the whole 'town' must be destroyed as a consequence.
Click to expand...

Or like a scientist who discovers that his petri-dish has been infected by an unwanted strain of bacteria, and so he washes out and sterilizes the petri-dish to get rid of it, and then re-introduces the original cultures... along with a few members of the unwanted bacteria for good measure. :)
 
Navigator said:
"Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?"

I am offering an answer to the question. I assume the question is metaphorical.
Click to expand...

No, the question is not metaphorical. Perhaps I'm being dense, but your post # 2 didn't seem to me to address mass extinctions.
 
SimonD said:
Why bother with mass extinctions at all? Why not just create man, say from dust ;)

Tim, what is it you are trying to achieve by asking this question? You know the responses you are going to get from creationist is either,

a) Dinosaurs didn't exist, or if they did they got wiped out by the flood (which was punishment from God - so technical not a 'mass extinction')
b) God works in mysteries ways and who are you to question the almighty
Click to expand...

I'm not asking young earth creationists to answer this question. It's primarily aimed at theistic evolutionists. I could also ask it of old earth creationists. The latter argue, for example, that God first created Eohippus in the Eocene, then wiped that model out to create successively larger horses, etc. The logical question to ask OEC's is, "Why not just create the likes of Sea Biscuit from the git-go?"

My question is for those who see evolution as God's way of creating everything. It's the position I used to espouse when I still tried to believe. It's the question I frankly could not answer. The way I see it is that any deity that would work by way of mass extinctions would have to be rather capricious.
 
I take it you haven't played Sim City. Everyone goes for a while, then gets bored and causes a disaster or six.
 
Brian-M said:
Or like a scientist who discovers that his petri-dish has been infected by an unwanted strain of bacteria, and so he washes out and sterilizes the petri-dish to get rid of it, and then re-introduces the original cultures... along with a few members of the unwanted bacteria for good measure. :)
Click to expand...

No.

In the case of the biblical idea of god the washing out did not get rid of the unwanted.

:)

The unwanted was not the form but the attitude coming through the form.
 
TimCallahan said:
I'm not asking young earth creationists to answer this question. It's primarily aimed at theistic evolutionists. I could also ask it of old earth creationists. The latter argue, for example, that God first created Eohippus in the Eocene, then wiped that model out to create successively larger horses, etc. The logical question to ask OEC's is, "Why not just create the likes of Sea Biscuit from the git-go?"

My question is for those who see evolution as God's way of creating everything. It's the position I used to espouse when I still tried to believe. It's the question I frankly could not answer. The way I see it is that any deity that would work by way of mass extinctions would have to be rather capricious.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps why so many abandon belief in any god idea, and sometimes retort in the negative to any such ideas of there been a creative mind and purpose behind the universe. They have no way of rectifying a creator god with their having to experience life in the physical universe, therefore "no 'god' did it".
 
TimCallahan said:
Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?
Click to expand...
.
The people who designed this board were obviously pretty intelligent. And yet, they didn't allow the Admin and Mods the power of mass extinction.

Now look what we're stuck with.

Pretty clear case that mass extinctions would be a critical part of any omnipotent being's plan.
 
If for the moment we suspend questions of whether it's reasonable to presume an intelligent designer at all, I don't see this as such a problem. Theists tend to give their gods all sorts of nice attributes, but nothing in the basic idea of intelligent design says that the intelligence is benevolent, economical, nice, or has goals that in any way duplicate our own.

Imagine that there was a god. Perfection is dull, predictable, immobile. Why would a god create a universe at all except for the fun of imperfection and disaster. Think of the universe as a bored god's electric train set. Intelligent design abounds, but if the purpose of the universe is amusement, expect some derailments and bloody crossings.
 
Why do whole teams of people spend hours painstakingly setting up intricate patterns of dominos in their high school gymnasium?

For the sheer joy of watching the little buggers fall.
 
Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?
Genesis 6:12 :)
 
TimCallahan said:
<polite snip> I'm interested in hearing from any believers - Christian, Muslim, Jewish or other - as to how mass extinctions fit into their idea of an intelligent designer. Is this designer capricious? Does he get bored over the eons and change his mind a lot? If the designer is not capricious, how does one explain mass extinctions?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they will be able to make up some psuedo-historical mystic guff to fit the reality of evolution.
 
If you have intelligent design, that doesn't necessarily mean VERY intelligent.....

"Oops! Damn....Didn't want to do that....Here, let's wipe that out and start over...."

Let's face it... If there was intelligent design it's pretty obvious there were problems in the R&D area.
 
bruto said:
If for the moment we suspend questions of whether it's reasonable to presume an intelligent designer at all, I don't see this as such a problem. Theists tend to give their gods all sorts of nice attributes, but nothing in the basic idea of intelligent design says that the intelligence is benevolent, economical, nice, or has goals that in any way duplicate our own.

Imagine that there was a god. Perfection is dull, predictable, immobile. Why would a god create a universe at all except for the fun of imperfection and disaster. Think of the universe as a bored god's electric train set. Intelligent design abounds, but if the purpose of the universe is amusement, expect some derailments and bloody crossings.
Click to expand...

This is acceptable metaphor. The human form is adequate but does not necessarily work well for the consciousness within it, which essentially is this 'god' - the body does not easily 'take' to the consciousness and can have a mind of its own so to speak.

There may even be more to it than simply relieving ennui and general thrill seeking. There may be some purpose unknown and unimaginable in relation to the 'ego' of the form.
 
Bikewer said:
If you have intelligent design, that doesn't necessarily mean VERY intelligent.....

"Oops! Damn....Didn't want to do that....Here, let's wipe that out and start over...."

Let's face it... If there was intelligent design it's pretty obvious there were problems in the R&D area.
Click to expand...

It could be that each period between extinctions is planned that way - as necessary part of the whole unfolding thing.

We 'see' (and thus react to) a mistake where none actually is.
 
Navigator said:
There is some cherry picking perhaps going on in this answer Brian-M.

The impression I get from the story is that this far-seeing god was sorry for creating such a particular form because consciousness was not so easily directed/controllable within the form - it had too much independence and was too self centered to see its connection to the whole process and as such - on global scales could make a whole mess of things.

I get the impression that the character (god) made a mistake and tried to rectify that by washing it away. More like a scientist who creates a monster and then decides the extreme thing to do to kill that monster even if the whole 'town' must be destroyed as a consequence.
Click to expand...

You're talking about the Fludde as though it actually occurred.
Why not discuss actual extinction events, such as the Permian–Triassic extinction event WP?
 
TimCallahan said:
A theistic evolutionist would likely argue that God had us in mind when He started the evolutionary ball rolling. Logically, then, the dominance of the synapsids, the mammal-like reptiles, in the Permian should have led directly into the age of mammals and the evolution of intelligent mammals, like us... This all seems rather haphazard and chaotic.
Click to expand...
It may seem haphazard and chaotic, but if God had taken an evolutionary 'shortcut' to produce Man, would we have turned out the same? I would bet not, in which case the convoluted path He took may have been required if He had 'us' in mind.

Is this designer capricious? Does he get bored over the eons and change his mind a lot?
Click to expand...
According to the Bible, God is capricious and changes His mind a lot.
 
pakeha said:
You're talking about the Fludde as though it actually occurred.
Why not discuss actual extinction events, such as the Permian–Triassic extinction event WP?
Click to expand...

Relax.

I am speaking with metaphor.

Extinction of form which I am referring to isn't really the 'flood' any more than the god idea I am speaking of need be that of the bible.
He was just mentioned earlier on in the thread and I went with that in answering the post.
 
-Maybe the "designer" had no clue what he was doing and changed his mind a lot along the way? The ramifications to religion, here, is immense! Perhaps gods are actually a lot more like us than we ever realized.

-or gods don't exist, of course.

I will freely admit that humans seem to have a predisposition to believe in some ultimate authority figure/controller, and won't deny that side of my own character, But I tend to lean toward statement #2 most of the time, despite freely contemplating other possibilities. I think I lean more toward Zeus than Christ/Yaweh if I have to pick a theistic religion. Timeless and perfect gods who always know the future just don't make any sense at all to me -- much less sense than the notion of a god in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
If for the moment we suspend questions of whether it's reasonable to presume an intelligent designer at all, I don't see this as such a problem. Theists tend to give their gods all sorts of nice attributes, but nothing in the basic idea of intelligent design says that the intelligence is benevolent, economical, nice, or has goals that in any way duplicate our own.

Imagine that there was a god. Perfection is dull, predictable, immobile. Why would a god create a universe at all except for the fun of imperfection and disaster. Think of the universe as a bored god's electric train set. Intelligent design abounds, but if the purpose of the universe is amusement, expect some derailments and bloody crossings.
Click to expand...

So, you don't think a omnipotent creator could find a way to make perfection interesting? If so, then it's not omnipotent.
 
Gawdzilla said:
So, you don't think a omnipotent creator could find a way to make perfection interesting? If so, then it's not omnipotent.
Click to expand...

Or not perfect. Or neither.

Of course we presume here that "omnipotent" means having all the power that there is, not necessarily all the power that one could imagine, including the power to be contradictory. But if that power is not complete, how can it be perfect?

Here of course you get into one of the basic problems that leads to the conclusion that there is no god, or at the very least that there is no god that resembles what people assume the word means. A perfect being cannot be imperfect. Unless we fuss with the definition of perfection, we must assume that perfection once achieved leaves little if any room for change. I suppose that if you wanted to fool around with it you could find "perfections" that are equal and incompatible between which one could shuttle, but incompatibility is an imperfection, isn't it? The rational conclusion is, of course, that perfection is not achievable, making a perfect god oxymoronic. One can come close to resolving this (assuming that we skate over some very thin conceptual ice) by assuming that a perfect being creates an imperfect universe for behe adventure of it. Of course, as noted, if there's a good reason to consider imperfection and variety as good and worthwhile, then how can a perfect being lack that?

The more you try to make sense of it the less sense it makes. But I'm sure you already noticed that!
 
Manopolus said:
-Maybe the "designer" had no clue what he was doing and changed his mind a lot along the way? The ramifications to religion, here, is immense! Perhaps gods are actually a lot more like us than we ever realized.
-or gods don't exist, of course.

I will freely admit that humans seem to have a predisposition to believe in some ultimate authority figure/controller, and won't deny that side of my own character, But I tend to lean toward statement #2 most of the time, despite freely contemplating other possibilities. I think I lean more toward Zeus than Christ/Yaweh if I have to pick a theistic religion. Timeless and perfect gods who always know the future just don't make any sense at all to me -- much less sense than the notion of a god in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, a less than perfect God - who would, as several posters have noted, fit the actions of Yahweh in the OT - would fit as a creator who might, from time to time, resort to mass extinctions.

In a way this fits with reconciling the social Darwinist dictum of "survival of the fittest" with the real world: Many times its not so much survival of the fittest as it is survival of the most adequate or even survival of the least inadequate. This BTW would explain T. rex's tiny arms: They weren't a special adaptation for some esoteric use. They were, in fact, a maladaption. However, when taken with that head full of nasty fangs and those powerful claw-footed legs, it wasn't that big a drawback.
 
pakeha said:
Ahh.
What's your god idea, then?
Click to expand...

In relation to the thread OP and with the bible god also in focus, and in relation to other ideas people have expressed outside of general accepted beliefs about what 'god' [organised religions] is I lean toward the idea that it is essentially Consciousness, has always existed outside of any restrictive form, is essentially 'who we are/what we derive from as conscious beings' cannot be expressed by anything other than metaphor, is not 'he' or 'she' may seem to be omnipresent due to it being connected to every aspect of consciousness within the universe (not excluding the possibility of other universes) has a particular use for this physical universe, is neither 'good' or 'evil' the way we measure such things and is evolving through multi-simulations (see Tom Campbell for more on this) and is inseparable from you and I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom