If it was designed, was it really all that "intelligent"?

[Etritonakin]

You might not see it as a trial-and-error process, but it is.

I should have said I see evolution as more than just a trial-and-error process.

However, it is unlike God's overall creative process.
He is not trying until he gets it right -he got it right before he tried it.
There are some trial-and-error processes at work on some levels, but not overall.

I'll try to explain what I mean more clearly later.

 

[Sapiens]

Ah . . . the infamous "bad design" argument. The argument that if I can demonstrate something in biology is less than optimal, it proves evolutiondunnit. The funny thing about the "bad design" argument is that it's a badly-designed argument. Heh. I think we can all agree it wasn't the product of an intelligent designer.

Anyway, there are (at least) two major flaws with the "bad design" argument:

1. Bad design is still design. There have been innumerous known designs throughout human history, and many of these designs were far less than optimal. That doesn't exclude them from being designs. Further, many of the examples of so-called bad design in biology would more accurately be labeled as harsh designs, yet some of the most harsh designs we know of were produced by some of the most brilliant men and women to ever walk the Earth. Scientists are the ones responsible for nuclear and biological weaponry, after all.

2. It's a double-edged sword. If bad design is evidence against the intelligent design position, then good design must be evidence for said position. The brilliance of life (good design) easily outweighs any flaws (bad design), thus, the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

The bad design argument, fleshed out and with irrational bias removed, is actually overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for bringing it up, Stevicus.

You are missing the point of the "bad-design" evidence. We are in agreement that there is "bad design" and we are also in agreement that "bad design," per se, is not evidence of either evolution or creationism. But, and it is a BIG BUT, when you look for the "cause" of the bad design you have two explanations, the first is that an all-knowing, omnipotent being dictated that rabbit must eat their own feces to survive, that giraffes' nervous system must make a huge detour and that whales and snakes must have vestigial pelvic girdles because said all-knowing, omnipotent being just couldn't get it right ... or was it because coprophagia permitted rabbits to survive on plant material that in other animal lines required the development of multiple stomachs, and regurgitate/cud chewing abilities that rabbits had no per-adaptation for? Similarly, the extreme detour of a giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerves, a distance of some 15 ft, is either another major blunder on the part of an all-knowing, omnipotent being or was necessitated by the fact that the nerve's direct route in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish) was not possible since over the course of evolution, the neck's extension and the hearts movement to a position lower in the body, left the laryngeal nerve on the wrong side of the heart, a problem that natural selection dealt with. Greg Meyer talks about whales and snakes:

Snakes are not the only tetrapods (or even lizards) to have lost their legs. Whales have lost their hind legs (the front ones are now their flippers), and we have a pretty good fossil record of how they did so, thanks in large part to the work of Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology (see his great whale evolution site here) and his collaborators.

Although whales lack external hind legs (except as rare teratologies), they do have internal rudiments of the hind limbs and pelvic girdle, as I was reminded during a recent visit to my and Jerry’s alma mater, the Museum of Comparative Zoology, where one of the Museum’s killer whale skeletons now hangs in the building across a new courtyard: note the remnant hind limb girdle at lower left.

There are, quite literally, thousands of such examples, likely several in each species extant, where the evolutionary solution was "bad design" that can be clearly traced to where the organism was in its evolutionary path.

As for your "double-edged sword," that's just an argument from ignorance.

 

[Unification]

Just to throw a few things out there................

Form follows function.

The life forms which we can consider and study -living or dead -are "imperfect" from a certain perspective.

Many have pointed out fraitlies and vulnerabilities, etc in life forms, which they perceive as not very intelligent from a design perspective.

According the the bible, the earthly, physical creatures -including man -were caused to be after God had made much more "perfect" beings.

Forget blind spots in our eyes and spinal issues.... We die! Certainly that should be number one on the imperfection list!

We are extremely vulnerable to our environment in many ways -but even if we manage to avoid all of the dangers in daily life all of our lives, our bodies become less and less functional -and then we die.

Why would God make humans "a little lower than the angels" -yet tell them they would eventually judge the affairs of the angels?

If God is already able to make us immortal, why did he not just do so in the first place?

What possible function could this form perform?

If God could have made our bodies perfect and invulnerable, the function of this body and environment would be to cause psychological effects. Experiencing this environment in this body would have the desired effect on the minds which could eventually be transferred to a perfect "glorious" body similar to the one which enabled the being who became Christ to create the universe and make all things subject to himself.

As we are creative beings, our environment is certainly a training tool to teach us to be better creators -but our perspective of imperfection also creates a drive toward perfection.

According to the bible, we are not the first creative beings created -and not the first to inhabit the earth. The angels inhabited the earth before we did -and their activities are not described in any great detail -but it is possible they had an effect on earthly life forms just as we do -perhaps with greater ability to do so.

(It would also be reasonable to think that God's creative processes involved some sort of research and development/field trials, etc., at some point)

However, the angels were created into perfection/a perfect situation -and were drawn toward imperfection -it was an unknown from their perspective.

Then angels and humans were allowed to interact. The angels witness man's experience, and man strives against "principalities, powers, spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places" -and are also aided by the angels who did not sin as God directs them.

That is the basis of the psychological reasons for our present form, but there are also practical considerations.

While the cycle of earthly life -birth, death, decomposition, recycled materials, etc, actually hints at the fact that life does not have to be of such a nature -that it is not necessarily a temporary state, it also allows for many things to be accomplished in a limited space, with limited materials, and in a specific time frame.

One life form may be composed of material from many other different life forms which once existed, so many individual creatures and men/women can live in the same limited space over time using the same material.

God limited man's lifespan to 120 years at a certain point ( not sure if he allowed any wiggle room), which allowed great numbers of men to live long enough for this form to perform its function, then die and make room for the next generation.

God is quoted as saying he limited man's lifespan so that his "spirit will not always strive with man" -so it limited his frustration with our newbish behavior to that which was necessary to accomplish his purpose.

As we are rather destructive at present -as were the sinning angels who were restrained -this form also limits our ability to destroy things.

When we are of a mindset to no longer be destructive, we may inhabit the universe. Space will not be an issue.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else"

Manna from heaven (subatomic particles and energy from the cosmos) as well as (subatomic particles and energy coming from our brains.)

Information, intelligence, knowledge, DNA, molecular gas, etc, comes from celestial bodies and our environment. Science will one day learn this, that our brains are receivers for photons, and other subatomic energies as information in motion, and consciousness.

Angles of light cause Arcs in the brain, Archangels or we can say Arcangles.

The human brain is a receiver for information in motion/energy/consciousness from its external and internal environment. It's a miniature duplicate brain of the cosmos (big brain)

Conveying signals point to point. Source to source.

Information in motion. (Photons/light)
The word 'Angel' is taken from the Greek word 'Angelos' which means 'Messenger, Angels are God's messengers, and Einstein said that Light comes to the Earth at an angle, and that light which are Photons, are messenger particles. Angels/Angles. Archangel= Arcangle.

The tabernacle of God is the brain. The tabernacle of consciousness is the brain. Our tabernacles are receivers. Our own 12 legions of angels are the cranial neves.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah . . . the infamous "bad design" argument. The argument that if I can demonstrate something in biology is less than optimal, it proves evolutiondunnit. The funny thing about the "bad design" argument is that it's a badly-designed argument. Heh. I think we can all agree it wasn't the product of an intelligent designer.

Anyway, there are (at least) two major flaws with the "bad design" argument:

1. Bad design is still design. There have been innumerous known designs throughout human history, and many of these designs were far less than optimal. That doesn't exclude them from being designs. Further, many of the examples of so-called bad design in biology would more accurately be labeled as harsh designs, yet some of the most harsh designs we know of were produced by some of the most brilliant men and women to ever walk the Earth. Scientists are the ones responsible for nuclear and biological weaponry, after all.

2. It's a double-edged sword. If bad design is evidence against the intelligent design position, then good design must be evidence for said position. The brilliance of life (good design) easily outweighs any flaws (bad design), thus, the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports intelligent design.

The bad design argument, fleshed out and with irrational bias removed, is actually overwhelming evidence for intelligent design. Thank you for bringing it up, Stevicus.

Another major flaw being that 'bad design' is a subjective argument- and one usually from the gaps .

'I dunno why it was done this way, id' have done it differently, so it's bad design' which has been said of many things we didn't understand which turned out to be crucial to life on Earth

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are missing the point of the "bad-design" evidence. We are in agreement that there is "bad design" and we are also in agreement that "bad design," per se, is not evidence of either evolution or creationism. But, and it is a BIG BUT, when you look for the "cause" of the bad design you have two explanations, the first is that an all-knowing, omnipotent being dictated that rabbit must eat their own feces to survive, that giraffes' nervous system must make a huge detour and that whales and snakes must have vestigial pelvic girdles because said all-knowing, omnipotent being just couldn't get it right ... or was it because coprophagia permitted rabbits to survive on plant material that in other animal lines required the development of multiple stomachs, and regurgitate/cud chewing abilities that rabbits had no per-adaptation for? Similarly, the extreme detour of a giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerves, a distance of some 15 ft, is either another major blunder on the part of an all-knowing, omnipotent being or was necessitated by the fact that the nerve's direct route in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish) was not possible since over the course of evolution, the neck's extension and the hearts movement to a position lower in the body, left the laryngeal nerve on the wrong side of the heart, a problem that natural selection dealt with. Greg Meyer talks about whales and snakes:

Snakes are not the only tetrapods (or even lizards) to have lost their legs. Whales have lost their hind legs (the front ones are now their flippers), and we have a pretty good fossil record of how they did so, thanks in large part to the work of Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology (see his great whale evolution site here) and his collaborators.

Although whales lack external hind legs (except as rare teratologies), they do have internal rudiments of the hind limbs and pelvic girdle, as I was reminded during a recent visit to my and Jerry’s alma mater, the Museum of Comparative Zoology, where one of the Museum’s killer whale skeletons now hangs in the building across a new courtyard: note the remnant hind limb girdle at lower left.

There are, quite literally, thousands of such examples, likely several in each species extant, where the evolutionary solution was "bad design" that can be clearly traced to where the organism was in its evolutionary path.

As for your "double-edged sword," that's just an argument from ignorance.

Many cars on the road still share parts which are corroded by ethanol additives, and share redundant fittings which are not used on that model.

By your rationale, this suggests that these things were never designed intelligently

in fact they are just evidence of design being modified to suit different niches as they arise.

 

[Unification]

You are missing the point of the "bad-design" evidence. We are in agreement that there is "bad design" and we are also in agreement that "bad design," per se, is not evidence of either evolution or creationism. But, and it is a BIG BUT, when you look for the "cause" of the bad design you have two explanations, the first is that an all-knowing, omnipotent being dictated that rabbit must eat their own feces to survive, that giraffes' nervous system must make a huge detour and that whales and snakes must have vestigial pelvic girdles because said all-knowing, omnipotent being just couldn't get it right ... or was it because coprophagia permitted rabbits to survive on plant material that in other animal lines required the development of multiple stomachs, and regurgitate/cud chewing abilities that rabbits had no per-adaptation for? Similarly, the extreme detour of a giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerves, a distance of some 15 ft, is either another major blunder on the part of an all-knowing, omnipotent being or was necessitated by the fact that the nerve's direct route in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish) was not possible since over the course of evolution, the neck's extension and the hearts movement to a position lower in the body, left the laryngeal nerve on the wrong side of the heart, a problem that natural selection dealt with. Greg Meyer talks about whales and snakes:

Snakes are not the only tetrapods (or even lizards) to have lost their legs. Whales have lost their hind legs (the front ones are now their flippers), and we have a pretty good fossil record of how they did so, thanks in large part to the work of Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology (see his great whale evolution site here) and his collaborators.

Although whales lack external hind legs (except as rare teratologies), they do have internal rudiments of the hind limbs and pelvic girdle, as I was reminded during a recent visit to my and Jerry’s alma mater, the Museum of Comparative Zoology, where one of the Museum’s killer whale skeletons now hangs in the building across a new courtyard: note the remnant hind limb girdle at lower left.

There are, quite literally, thousands of such examples, likely several in each species extant, where the evolutionary solution was "bad design" that can be clearly traced to where the organism was in its evolutionary path.

As for your "double-edged sword," that's just an argument from ignorance.

Coprophagia is just a judgement on our behalf from our minds. We aren't a rabbit, maybe their feces taste great to them, it's free and they don't have to work for it. Maybe it's more nutritional for them than most of the things we divulge carelessly. All they have to do is obey the laws of nature and go doo-doo when they have to and eat when they're hungry.

Conscious and physical evolution are still going on. It's pretty crazy how anyone couldn't appreciate life and has to complain about it. Sounds like misery and bitterness. The study of something not appreciated would rather defeat the purpose.

 

[Unification]

Random thoughts....

I do not see evolution as a trial-and-error process, but process which accomplished its intended goal.
Even if one does not believe in God, "evolution" -which is associated with the phrase "survival of the fittest" -is credited with producing life forms which were increasingly "god-like".
An eternal, invulnerable, all-knowing, omnipotent being would be the most fit to survive.

Evolution cannot be a trial and error process if it is not trying to do anything.
If an intelligence is trying to do something by evolution (ensure survival of life without the need for constant attention) -it would be more of a trial-and-success process, because it would have resulted in man -who can (at least) conceive of charting his own evolutionary course toward an increasingly god-like position.

If there is no God, evolution produced man without forethought -and man, in turn, conceived of making all things subject to himself -including evolution.
Doesn't seem logical to me.

The universe and all therein -especially life -seems very much designed to me.
Finding something not designed for comparison is the difficult part.
Knowing the nature of present nature -even if designed -could reveal any further design.
Knowing also the nature of that which preceded "nature" as we know it would reveal the nature of any previous designer.

Just some background info.....
I believe God declared the end from the beginning.
That is to say.... before God had the Word create the universe, the worlds within, the earth, etc... to eventually become subject to him...
the juxtaposition of angelic beings (created before man) moving from perfection and fleshly beings moving toward perfection was already part of the plan.

In other words... "evolution" of earthly life is not the "best" that God could do from a design perspective, but somewhat analogous to such things as the confusing of speech at Babel.

The confusing of speech at Babel was to slow man down.....

Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

...and making man "lower" than the angels was intended to humble man initially -whereas angels were exalted initially.

Similar to this principle....

"Luk 14:11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

To what end? Contentment in any situation. The two positions will essentially cancel each other out -and the realization that any position is temporary, that all can become ever-greater -but that any position or status can be enjoyable -that they are different -not literally lesser or greater -will be the result.

God will exalt humble mankind -and humble the angelic kind -but to the end that all are extremely happy -without false pride, etc.....

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Eze 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Eze 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
Eze 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Of course, it is the choice of any to accept God's mercy -but God's mercy never fails.

In reality......All will have forever to become whatever -so one's present position is of little concern
We can only ever be what we are -and never what we are not.
...but forever we can become that which we are not yet.


( I was just thinking of all of the things I once wanted to be -wanted to do, etc...
and now that I believe there is no limit, I appreciate the state of those beings which do not consider what they are not. They just are -and it is awesome.
We transition -and it is more awesome. It is the coveting of something unattainable or impractical which is unpleasant.)

Covering cherub:

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Another major flaw being that 'bad design' is a subjective argument- and one usually from the gaps .

'I dunno why it was done this way, id' have done it differently, so it's bad design' which has been said of many things we didn't understand which turned out to be crucial to life on Earth

Most of our understanding of suboptimal design* is based on our growing knowledge of life and its biological processes. That knowledge comes from science, not from the faith that "there must be a reason" for everything. That line of reasoning leads to things like leeches, smallpox, and infant mortality. Human life has been improved on through medicine and technology, and we have overcome many of the inherent fragilities of human existence because of our scientific understandings of the human body. Those advances are far more crucial than a belief in creationism, which seems to say "don't worry, just wait. . . the human body was designed for this I'll bet"

*Design being a creationist word that I am using for the context of the argument, not because I actually believe we are "designed."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many cars on the road still share parts which are corroded by ethanol additives, and share redundant fittings which are not used on that model.

By your rationale, this suggests that these things were never designed intelligently

in fact they are just evidence of design being modified to suit different niches as they arise.

You ignored the entire point of their post. It was contained and explained very clearly in the opening sentences, emphasis mine:

You are missing the point of the "bad-design" evidence. We are in agreement that there is "bad design" and we are also in agreement that "bad design," per se, is not evidence of either evolution or creationism. But, and it is a BIG BUT, when you look for the "cause" of the bad design you have two explanations, the first is that an all-knowing, omnipotent being dictated that rabbit must eat their own feces to survive, that giraffes' nervous system must make a huge detour and that whales and snakes must have vestigial pelvic girdles because said all-knowing, omnipotent being just couldn't get it right ... or was it because coprophagia permitted rabbits to survive on plant material that in other animal lines required the development of multiple stomachs, and regurgitate/cud chewing abilities that rabbits had no per-adaptation for?

They clearly state that "bad design" isn't evidence against design right there in the second sentence (underlined). The important thing is the stuff in red.

 

[Unification]

Most of our understanding of suboptimal design* is based on our growing knowledge of life and its biological processes. That knowledge comes from science, not from the faith that "there must be a reason" for everything. That line of reasoning leads to things like leeches, smallpox, and infant mortality. Human life has been improved on through medicine and technology, and we have overcome many of the inherent fragilities of human existence because of our scientific understandings of the human body. Those advances are far more crucial than a belief in creationism, which seems to say "don't worry, just wait. . . the human body was designed for this I'll bet"

*Design being a creationist word that I am using for the context of the argument, not because I actually believe we are "designed."

Where does growing knowledge derive from? What is its source?

 

[Sapiens]

Coprophagia is just a judgement on our behalf from our minds. We aren't a rabbit, maybe their feces taste great to them, it's free and they don't have to work for it. Maybe it's more nutritional for them than most of the things we divulge carelessly. All they have to do is obey the laws of nature and go doo-doo when they have to and eat when they're hungry.

Conscious and physical evolution are still going on. It's pretty crazy how anyone couldn't appreciate life and has to complain about it. Sounds like misery and bitterness. The study of something not appreciated would rather defeat the purpose.

You're missing the point. Rabbits eat their crap not to disgust humans but because they must since they have not extracted the nutrients they need till the second pass through. This is because they were already too far down a given path to evolve a digestive tract like a cow. I notice you're remarkably silent on giraffes, snakes and whales ... cat got your tongue?

 

[Sapiens]

Many cars on the road still share parts which are corroded by ethanol additives, and share redundant fittings which are not used on that model.

By your rationale, this suggests that these things were never designed intelligently

in fact they are just evidence of design being modified to suit different niches as they arise.

Your example and conclusion demonstrates my point. The raw stuff must be there if it is to evolve into another structure, e.g, arms and hands to bird or bat wings or to whale or seal flippers. A bird will never go back to being a four legged runner, a bat will never go back to being a small fourlegged insectivore, a whale will never go about on four legs either. Snakes will never go back to being lizard like. Seals and sea lions are interesting, they stand in a middle ground and can remain amphibious, go back to land or fully switch to an aquatic life, they still have the stuff that is required.

 

[Unification]

You're missing the point. Rabbits eat their crap not to disgust humans but because they must since they have not extracted the nutrients they need till the second pass through. This is because they were already too far down a given path to evolve a digestive tract like a cow. I notice you're remarkably silent on giraffes, snakes and whales ... cat got your tongue?

It really just comes down to nitpicking bias on both ends. There is no evidence that those cause disadvantages. We are not a giraffe, snake, whale, or rabbit.. Maybe at one time, but we don't have all knowledge and I'm certain giraffes, snakes, rabbits, and whales are not pondering over or aware, or concerned with any of these. They do what they do, and have their own method to their madness. They don't think about irrelevant, and useless things, or complain about life, I know that much.

 

[McBell]

They don't think about irrelevant, and useless things, or complain about life, I know that much.

You really should submit your research.
I mean, if you know what giraffes, snakes, rabbits, and whales are all talking about around the water cooler....

 

[Sapiens]

and your point is? Address the issues on the table not some random BS that does not relate.

 

[McBell]

and your point is? Address the issues on the table not some random BS that does not relate.

???

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Most of our understanding of suboptimal design* is based on our growing knowledge of life and its biological processes. That knowledge comes from science, not from the faith that "there must be a reason" for everything. That line of reasoning leads to things like leeches, smallpox, and infant mortality. Human life has been improved on through medicine and technology, and we have overcome many of the inherent fragilities of human existence because of our scientific understandings of the human body. Those advances are far more crucial than a belief in creationism, which seems to say "don't worry, just wait. . . the human body was designed for this I'll bet"

*Design being a creationist word that I am using for the context of the argument, not because I actually believe we are "designed."

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

science hasn't the faintest idea how everything you see around you originated, far less how it was designed. I'm no Bible scholar but I don't think it has much to say about using leeches as medical treatment, it does have something to say about healthy living, resisting temptation, appreciating the gift of life, your body.

'There must not be a reason' leads to things like static universes, Newtonian 'laws' of physics, steady state, Big Crunch, not to mention Stalin, Mao, Il Sung

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You ignored the entire point of their post. It was contained and explained very clearly in the opening sentences, emphasis mine:

You are missing the point of the "bad-design" evidence. We are in agreement that there is "bad design" and we are also in agreement that "bad design," per se, is not evidence of either evolution or creationism. But, and it is a BIG BUT, when you look for the "cause" of the bad design you have two explanations, the first is that an all-knowing, omnipotent being dictated that rabbit must eat their own feces to survive, that giraffes' nervous system must make a huge detour and that whales and snakes must have vestigial pelvic girdles because said all-knowing, omnipotent being just couldn't get it right ... or was it because coprophagia permitted rabbits to survive on plant material that in other animal lines required the development of multiple stomachs, and regurgitate/cud chewing abilities that rabbits had no per-adaptation for?

They clearly state that "bad design" isn't evidence against design right there in the second sentence (underlined). The important thing is the stuff in red.

The part in red is the same old argument for chance v design is it not?, I agree with the first part, the Giraffe's nervous system must make a detour, and that this not a mistake, as the detours in our lives are necessary. As has been repeatedly demonstrated re. the nature of the universe, it does not obey Occam's razor. Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

 

[Sapiens]

???

Not you, of course, rather Unification.

 

[Sapiens]

The part in red is the same old argument for chance v design is it not?, I agree with the first part, the Giraffe's nervous system must make a detour, and that this not a mistake, as the detours in our lives are necessary. As has been repeatedly demonstrated re. the nature of the universe, it does not obey Occam's razor. Nature is the executor of God's laws (Galileo)

There is no "argument for chance v design" that is a stawman invention of the creationists.