Why would an intelligent designer use mass extinctions?

[bruto]

That is true of other human institutions, as I said. Religion is not the only thing that requires faith in the word of the leadership in order to string the followers along a particular course.

Perhaps, but first of all, having company in error does not diminish the error, and second, religion seems unique in its insistence that the truth is actually beyond the understanding of any human.

Your thinking is intriguing. What if perfection was the end result of a project started by a perfect thing and the unfolding events of that process only looked or were judged imperfect by that which was able to do so from a position within the process?

That's a familiar sort of argument, but it requires another dose of "mysteries we can never understand" to try to figure out why such a thing might be desired or possible. Since there seems to be no evidence that a perfect being exists, no evidence other than a debatable mental concept that perfection is even a possibility, no evidence that this or any other process would result in perfection, no evidence that any end is planned, and no evidence that in the event of an end to the universe there would be anything left to consitute a result, it's hard to consider such an idea as anything but a dodge for theists unwilling to accept the imperfection that surrounds them.

 

[Navigator]

Perhaps, but first of all, having company in error does not diminish the error, and second, religion seems unique in its insistence that the truth is actually beyond the understanding of any human.

I think science at present time acknowledges this as the case. Just because we don't know everything does not constitute being 'imperfect'.
Who is to really say what 'perfect' or 'imperfect' really is?
Please Bruto - explain to e what perfect is, and please try and stick to the truth while doing so.

That's a familiar sort of argument, but it requires another dose of "mysteries we can never understand" to try to figure out why such a thing might be desired or possible. Since there seems to be no evidence that a perfect being exists, no evidence other than a debatable mental concept that perfection is even a possibility, no evidence that this or any other process would result in perfection, no evidence that any end is planned, and no evidence that in the event of an end to the universe there would be anything left to consitute a result, it's hard to consider such an idea as anything but a dodge for theists unwilling to accept the imperfection that surrounds them.

Again.

There are simply more mysteries we are face with in our present position. It is simple as that. That is the truth of the matter.
Personally I did not bring the subject of 'perfection' up - I simply commented on a post which did bring it up. You are focusing upon the wrong person here.

My argument is that we are in no position to formerly acknowledge 'perfection' in any meaningful manner.

All I am arguing is that any ID would be beyond our immediate comprehension and offering examples as to why that is so..

 

[SimonD]

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.

Ahh...I see...

When I was much younger I used to play Dungeon and Dragons. In the guide book for the Dungeon Master there is a passage that basically states you can choose which rules you want to use and which you don't. God seems to me a lot like that.

 

[NekoTheCat]

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?

It's not just sloppy and wasteful, but quite cruel. In fact, this is an issue for the entire evolutionary process, and not just the mass extinctions. It portrays the creator as a rather cruel individual, and makes him out to be quite incompetent as well.

 

[Navigator]

It's not just sloppy and wasteful, but quite cruel. In fact, this is an issue for the entire evolutionary process, and not just the mass extinctions. It portrays the creator as a rather cruel individual, and makes him out to be quite incompetent as well.

Setting aside the 'he' identity, perhaps cruelty is not the attitude or agenda of any ID. If ultimately the consciousness is all one thing (the ID) then anything conscious experiencing suffering is part of the ID anyway. The ID would not be separate from the suffering. Perhaps the suffering is just something which needs to happen in relation to biological forms and the overall agenda of the ID in relation to this universe and what consciousness can do within this universe, using the materials and creating the forms it can do things through.
Like a divers suit is invented to allow the human body to submerge under water, the human form might be a such a thing designed to enable the consciousness to do things which other forms are unable to provide.

There are any amount of natural 'relief' substances which can and do help alleviate a lot of suffering.

 

[NekoTheCat]

Setting aside the 'he' identity, perhaps cruelty is not the attitude or agenda of any ID. If ultimately the consciousness is all one thing (the ID) then anything conscious experiencing suffering is part of the ID anyway. The ID would not be separate from the suffering. Perhaps the suffering is just something which needs to happen in relation to biological forms and the overall agenda of the ID in relation to this universe and what consciousness can do within this universe, using the materials and creating the forms it can do things through.
Like a divers suit is invented to allow the human body to submerge under water, the human form might be a such a thing designed to enable the consciousness to do things which other forms are unable to provide.

There are any amount of natural 'relief' substances which can and do help alleviate a lot of suffering.

I'm not sure if you heard that sound, but I believe it may have been the sound of your post flying over everyone's head. Or possibly scraping along the ground. Point being, I've no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[Navigator]

I'm not sure if you heard that sound, but I believe it may have been the sound of your post flying over everyone's head. Or possibly scraping along the ground. Point being, I've no idea what you are trying to say here.

I am saying what I have been saying through this thread to do with the idea of ID.

I can see where it would confuse you but can't be bothered repeating myself.

 

[Scorpion]

It is the occult view that the universe is created as a realm of experience, and God put the whole thing into motion as a perfect plan for the evolution of the immortal spirits of his children through countless incarnations. God does not interfere in the process because it is flawlessly continuing to its intended conclusion. Which is the enlightenment of all souls.There are many planets we incarnate on and we do not incarnate there until the conditions are right for us. Lesser animals are evolving toward their own perfection, and the dinosaurs did not die out, they simply moved to another planet to continue their evolution, and some of them have evolved into birds on this planet. So mass extinctions are just natural events that do not impede spiritual evolution.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not just sloppy and wasteful, but quite cruel. In fact, this is an issue for the entire evolutionary process, and not just the mass extinctions. It portrays the creator as a rather cruel individual, and makes him out to be quite incompetent as well.

I don't think its an "issue" for the evolutionary process, as such.

The mistake that creationists and ID proponents make is that they think there is some "purpose" to existence; there isn't. Right and wrong, kindness and cruelty, fairness and unfairness are human concepts, that we apply to the universe in our efforts to give existence some meaning. I'm almost tempted to say "the Universe doesn't care" except that would be wrong as it technically applies conciousness to the universe where none exists. The Universe just "is"; it exists, and we exist in it.

Evolution is something that we observe happening in the universe. Evolution is not working towards an "end"; it has no purpose or planned end product in sight. Evoluton, as a concept, began to take place at the beginning of the universe ~13.7 BYA, continues to this day, and will most likely continue until the end of the Universe, whenever and however that might be.

 

[bruto]

I think science at present time acknowledges this as the case. Just because we don't know everything does not constitute being 'imperfect'.
Who is to really say what 'perfect' or 'imperfect' really is?
Please Bruto - explain to e what perfect is, and please try and stick to the truth while doing so.



Again.

There are simply more mysteries we are face with in our present position. It is simple as that. That is the truth of the matter.
Personally I did not bring the subject of 'perfection' up - I simply commented on a post which did bring it up. You are focusing upon the wrong person here.

My argument is that we are in no position to formerly acknowledge 'perfection' in any meaningful manner.

All I am arguing is that any ID would be beyond our immediate comprehension and offering examples as to why that is so..

As usual I find your writing confusing and am never quite sure what you mean. I thought I was pretty clear that the idea of perfection is just an idea, subject to dispute even as to what it means, and not demonstrably possible in any of its usual meanings. If we cannot acknowledge perfection in a meaningful manner then we can't make meaningful surmises about how it might work. Just saying something is beyond your comprehension seems a poor reason to speculate on how it might work. Your "what if" is just a fiction, and while it might be amusing to speculate, it has no real use in trying to figure out how the universe works, any more than "what if I could lift a car?" Sure, the apparent chaos and suffering of the world might be part of some unspecified perfect being's plan to achieve some unspecified future perfection, or not. It seems about as useful as arguing that God is green.

As to the first question, no doubt scientists agree that we can never know everything, and that we can never understand all that there is to understand, but I think the point of theists' "mystery" is to tell us that understanding is not only beyond our capability but beyond our province. It is not just unattainable but inconceivable, not just over-ambitious but a trespass. When someone says "God works in mysterious ways" he's not saying "you aren't there yet." He's saying "Don't go there."

 

[dlorde]

I'm not asking young earth creationists to answer this question. It's primarily aimed at theistic evolutionists.
...
My question is for those who see evolution as God's way of creating everything.

If one believes that evolution is God's way of creating creatures, then won't mass extinctions just be part of the overall evolutionary process?

Do many theistic evolutionists believe that the mass extinctions were literally a direct act of God?

If so, one wonders how many species would have to go extinct in what extent of time for it to be considered a direct act of God...

 

[tsig]

Everything does. It is only when they are understood that the mystery is uncovered.

Do you understand them?

 

[Scorpion]

I don't think its an "issue" for the evolutionary process, as such.

The mistake that creationists and ID proponents make is that they think there is some "purpose" to existence; there isn't. Right and wrong, kindness and cruelty, fairness and unfairness are human concepts, that we apply to the universe in our efforts to give existence some meaning. I'm almost tempted to say "the Universe doesn't care" except that would be wrong as it technically applies conciousness to the universe where none exists. The Universe just "is"; it exists, and we exist in it.

Evolution is something that we observe happening in the universe. Evolution is not working towards an "end"; it has no purpose or planned end product in sight. Evoluton, as a concept, began to take place at the beginning of the universe ~13.7 BYA, continues to this day, and will most likely continue until the end of the Universe, whenever and however that might be.

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle that has no purpose, but why would anything evolve if that were the case. Evolution obviously exists, and it indicates a purpose working itself out behind the scenes.

 

[NekoTheCat]

I don't think its an "issue" for the evolutionary process, as such.

The mistake that creationists and ID proponents make is that they think there is some "purpose" to existence; there isn't. Right and wrong, kindness and cruelty, fairness and unfairness are human concepts, that we apply to the universe in our efforts to give existence some meaning. I'm almost tempted to say "the Universe doesn't care" except that would be wrong as it technically applies conciousness to the universe where none exists. The Universe just "is"; it exists, and we exist in it.

Evolution is something that we observe happening in the universe. Evolution is not working towards an "end"; it has no purpose or planned end product in sight. Evoluton, as a concept, began to take place at the beginning of the universe ~13.7 BYA, continues to this day, and will most likely continue until the end of the Universe, whenever and however that might be.

You misunderstand what I mean I think. When I said it was an issue for evolution, I merely meant its an issue for a god who is said to be powerful enough to make a universe, and a moral being who is said to have some sort of hand in starting off evolution and guiding it towards the creation of human beings. Essentially the western style god who has some hand in evolution and is supposedly moral. And the evolutionary process is an issue for the belief in such a god because evolution pretty much inherently revolves around death and suffering.

 

[tsig]

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle that has no purpose, but why would anything evolve if that were the case. Evolution obviously exists, and it indicates a purpose working itself out behind the scenes.

And that purpose is us?

 

[Brian-M]

and the dinosaurs did not die out, they simply moved to another planet to continue their evolution

I once read a science-fiction novel like that. It followed the intelligent descendants of the dinosaurs through a couple of centuries, outlining their society (very different social instincts to ours), and following their progress in realizing that their world is much older than their religions suggest that it is, their bafflement at how the fossil record just suddenly starts at one layer with nothing before it, and finally figuring out that they'd been transported to their world millions of years before by some unknown race of aliens.

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle that has no purpose, but why would anything evolve if that were the case. Evolution obviously exists, and it indicates a purpose working itself out behind the scenes.

Things evolve because of mindless processes.

Evolution is driven by the success of individuals. Success in this case being the ability to acquire food, to survive in general, and reproduce.

By chance alone mutations and variations occur that give some organisms better or worse ability to produce successful offspring. Because these mutations and variations are hereditary, these offspring also have the ability to produce similarly successful offspring of their own. No intelligence or purpose required there.

It's inevitable that the organisms which produce more successful offspring will eventually displace competing organisms (ie, similar or same types of creature) that produce less successful offspring. No intelligence or purpose needed there.

Repeat this process indefinitely and you have evolution.

Where's the intelligence or purpose in this process?

 

[I Ratant]

... and the dinosaurs did not die out, they simply moved to another planet to continue their evolution,...

.
That explains the Chixulub crater... it's the hole blasted by the dinosaur's space ship when it left.
Their technology, it's a shame we lost that, but I expect since there's no evidence of any, it must have been water soluble and just melted away in the summer rains since.

 

[smartcooky]

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle that has no purpose, but why would anything evolve if that were the case. Evolution obviously exists, and it indicates a purpose working itself out behind the scenes.

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle without purpose because there is simply no evidence to the contrary. Human belief systems are not evidence.

As far as the OP goes, not only do I see mass extinctions as a problem for creationists and intelligent designers, I also see the way those mass extinctions took place as a problem. The mythical deity is "perfect" and "all powerful", the designer is "all knowing" and "all intelligent" Why didn't he/it/they just build the Earth properly in the first place? Even if the mythical deity needed to use mass extinctions, he is magic and all powerful and should just have been able to (metaphorically speaking) "snap his fingers", and "poof", the requisite species' all disappear in a flash!

Instead, the mythical deity/designer goes to all the trouble of causing climate change by having massive volcanic eruptions (Tr-J event 200 MYA) or throwing a big rock at the Earth (Kg-P event 65 MYA).

This seems pointless and wasteful to me, and a sign of incompetence

 

[bruto]

It is easy to write off the universe as a mindless muddle that has no purpose, but why would anything evolve if that were the case. Evolution obviously exists, and it indicates a purpose working itself out behind the scenes.

It indicates nothing of the kind. If an organism reproduces at all, what does evolution require except for a lack of perfection and a whole lot of time?

 

[tsig]

It indicates nothing of the kind. If an organism reproduces at all, what does evolution require except for a lack of perfection and a whole lot of time?

Yep, once you have that first replicator that can take energy from an outside source and reproduce itself the rest is inevitable.