The Design of Torture

[Meow Mix]

Creationists, particularly those of you who say God is good and that irreducibly complex systems can't evolve,

In another thread we started raising some questions that were more tongue-in-cheek than anything, but now that I think about it, it seems like a question that needs to be answered.

Some examples that we brought up were Plasmodium falciparum and the HIV virus, amongst others.

Did God design these things? If so, how can He be said to be benevolent?

If not, these disease-causing agents incorporate irreducibly complex systems for evading immune systems -- would you have to admit that irreducibly complex systems can evolve?

Michael Behe is pretty quick to talk about the immune system itself and bacterial flagella, but what if someone brought to table the "design of torture," the irreducibly complex systems of organisms whose sole purpose is to reproduce while causing unimaginable pain and suffering in people?

For instance, Plasmodium falciparum evades the immune system by hiding in eurythrocytes (red blood cells). But the spleen destroys red blood cells, so they use "hook" shaped structures to latch onto the side of vessel walls. However, the immune system is able to identify and destroy these hooks over time, so Plasmodium actually goes through a "cycle" of different hook shapes from a genetic "database," always staying a step ahead of the immune system.

These methods for evading the immune system are irreducibly complex: without hooks, the organism gets destroyed in the spleen; furthermore if the hooks don't periodically switch out the immune system destroys the hooks.

Is this an example of a benevolent creator's design?

Or can irreducibly complex systems evolve?

Seems like a conundrum to me -- that is, if you're a creationist who believes in a benevolent God and denies that irreducibly complex systems can evolve.

EDIT: I just realize I never mentioned it. Plasmodium is the critter that causes malaria, so you can understand the scope of suffering that this thing causes in people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, you know that challenges like this are either going to be sleep inducing or bring out pitchforks, torches & scriptural quotations, don't you?
Honestly, I wish we had some fundies who could tackle technical issues like yours. I've tried your approach & I usually wound up just bleeding from my ears.

 

[evolved yet?]

I predict creationists will avoid this thread and will only be our opinions until it gets to the last page of threads.

 

[Meow Mix]

I predict creationists will avoid this thread and will only be our opinions until it gets to the last page of threads.

:yes: :slap: Maybe. We'll see.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

First of all, there is a difference between being believing in creation and being a creationist.

Don't viruses change DNA in bacteria?
So that would be deliberate change.
Is it just evolve or and/or mutate ?
Insecticides cause damage.

God designed both angelic and human creation to be obedient.
Obedience means protection and being out of harm's way.
Disobedience lead to sin. Sin to sickness. Sickness to death.
If one could stop sinning one would not die.
If one is not dying from sin, so to speak, then one is not sick.
Since we can not stop from sinning we get sick and die.
Since Isaiah is not here to type for himself, Isaiah did write about the future,
that the time is coming when: No resident will say, "I am sick".

So God did not purpose that humans should ever die or be sick.
Disobedience to God resulted in what surrounds the world today.
If God had destroyed human creation before A&E had children we would not be here.
Time has allowed all to be born and have the opportunity to decide to live by the Golden Rule or not. Obey God or not. Time has also shown the world that man can not successfully direct his step, so we need God to step in. This is why Jesus demonstrated on a small scale what healing or curing he will do on a much grander or world-wide scale in getting rid of all sickness and death permanently during what's called the millennial reign of Christ over earth.

Satan challenges in the book of Job that to touch man's bone and his flesh [loose health/ touch person himself] to see if he would serve and obey God or curse God.
In other words, apply enough pressure, then, sooner or later, there will be no one faithful.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First of all, there is a difference between being believing in creation and being a creationist.

Agreed.

Don't viruses change DNA in bacteria?
So that would be deliberate change.
Is it just evolve or and/or mutate ?
Insecticides cause damage.

Erm... You lost me.

God designed both angelic and human creation to be obedient.
Obedience means protection and being out of harm's way.
Disobedience lead to sin. Sin to sickness. Sickness to death.
If one could stop sinning one would not die.
If one is not dying from sin, so to speak, then one is not sick.
Since we can not stop from sinning we get sick and die.
Since Isaiah is not here to type for himself, Isaiah did write about the future,
that the time is coming when: No resident will say, "I am sick".

So God did not purpose that humans should ever die or be sick.
Disobedience to God resulted in what surrounds the world today.
If God had destroyed human creation before A&E had children we would not be here.
Time has allowed all to be born and have the opportunity to decide to live by the Golden Rule or not. Obey God or not. Time has also shown the world that man can not successfully direct his step, so we need God to step in. This is why Jesus demonstrated on a small scale what healing or curing he will do on a much grander or world-wide scale in getting rid of all sickness and death permanently during what's called the millennial reign of Christ over earth.

Satan challenges in the book of Job that to touch man's bone and his flesh [loose health/ touch person himself] to see if he would serve and obey God or curse God.
In other words, apply enough pressure, then, sooner or later, there will be no one faithful.

The rest of this is all gobbledegook.

 

[Meow Mix]

First of all, there is a difference between being believing in creation and being a creationist.

Of course, since many who have no problem with evolution and common descent do believe there was a creation.

Don't viruses change DNA in bacteria?
So that would be deliberate change.
Is it just evolve or and/or mutate ?
Insecticides cause damage.

Can you elaborate on what you're saying here...?

God designed both angelic and human creation to be obedient.
Obedience means protection and being out of harm's way.
Disobedience lead to sin. Sin to sickness. Sickness to death.
If one could stop sinning one would not die.
If one is not dying from sin, so to speak, then one is not sick.
Since we can not stop from sinning we get sick and die.
Since Isaiah is not here to type for himself, Isaiah did write about the future,
that the time is coming when: No resident will say, "I am sick".

So God did not purpose that humans should ever die or be sick.
Disobedience to God resulted in what surrounds the world today.
If God had destroyed human creation before A&E had children we would not be here.
Time has allowed all to be born and have the opportunity to decide to live by the Golden Rule or not. Obey God or not. Time has also shown the world that man can not successfully direct his step, so we need God to step in. This is why Jesus demonstrated on a small scale what healing or curing he will do on a much grander or world-wide scale in getting rid of all sickness and death permanently during what's called the millennial reign of Christ over earth.

Satan challenges in the book of Job that to touch man's bone and his flesh [loose health/ touch person himself] to see if he would serve and obey God or curse God.
In other words, apply enough pressure, then, sooner or later, there will be no one faithful.

Ok, look at the bolded and underlined part.

How does sin cause Plasmodium falciparum to evolve such terribly efficient methods?

Just stop and think for a second about where this organism came from, with all its methods and biology. Really think about it. It didn't come from nowhere. You say "sin" caused it, but how does "sin" magically cause an organism to be so efficient in such a specific way?

Either evolution happens or it doesn't, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. Do you agree that irreducibly complex systems evolve, and that Plasmodium's method of evading the immune system is one such evolved system -- thus negating the creationist argument that irreducibly complex systems can't evolve? If you agree that it evolved, then you must agree with evolution and common descent, right?

If it did not evolve, where did Plasmodium get such a sophisticated way to dodge immune systems? If God is the source of all complexity, then you seriously have to imagine God Allmighty, the benevolent creator, "taking the time" to think up this thing to torture mankind with.

Either way, the prospects are not pretty for creationists who deny that the creator is a malevolent demon.

 

[Atomist]

Obedience means protection and being out of harm's way.
Disobedience lead to sin. Sin to sickness. Sickness to death.
If one could stop sinning one would not die.
If one is not dying from sin, so to speak, then one is not sick.

That's absurd. Are you saying that those that ascribe to the correct god and obey said god are protected from harm (presumably diseases like say hiv)... well... that's obviously not true.

Also I think you and I have different definitions of death. Even you believe jesus died... but are you going to argue that jesus didn't really die? because then jesus wasn't really sacrificed to himself/his father.

(i'm assuming you're christian because you use the word sin.)

 

[Dunemeister]

Would this be a conundrum for those who believe God is good and that evolution is the natural process (processes, actually) He ordained to generate the diversity and dispersal of life we see?

 

[evolved yet?]

First of all, there is a difference between being believing in creation and being a creationist.

Agreed.

Don't viruses change DNA in bacteria?

Not really they just add extra DNA.

 

[Meow Mix]

Would this be a conundrum for those who believe God is good and that evolution is the natural process (processes, actually) He ordained to generate the diversity and dispersal of life we see?

Not as much of a problem, though the question arises of why God would allow things to evolve that torture sentient beings -- but it's not nearly as much of a conundrum, no. This argument is only really powerful against those who believe in an omni-p/omni-s benevolent creator who also deny irreducibly complex systems can evolve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Michael Behe is pretty quick to talk about the immune system itself and bacterial flagella, but what if someone brought to table the "design of torture," the irreducibly complex systems of organisms whose sole purpose is to reproduce while causing unimaginable pain and suffering in people?

I think you're jumping the gun a bit by calling any particular system "irreducibly complex". In order to use the fact of a negative "irreducibly complex" system against an ID proponent, first you'd need a coherent set of criteria to differentiate between things that are irreducibly complex and things that aren't. This means that your argument has the same problem that arguments from irreducible complexity have when they're made by the other side: no such coherent set of criteria exists.

For your argument to work, I think you'd need to pin the IDer down on what makes a thing irreducibly complex. Only then can you really argue that consistency with their stated position implies something nasty about their god and really hold them to it.

You need to do this because IC isn't a valid concept to begin with, so you can't really argue that it's self-evidently true. The argument has to be about internal consistency within the IDer's position and not external consistency with reality, because ID doesn't have external consistency.

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you're jumping the gun a bit by calling any particular system "irreducibly complex". In order to use the fact of a negative "irreducibly complex" system against an ID proponent, first you'd need a coherent set of criteria to differentiate between things that are irreducibly complex and things that aren't. This means that your argument has the same problem that arguments from irreducible complexity have when they're made by the other side: no such coherent set of criteria exists.

For your argument to work, I think you'd need to pin the IDer down on what makes a thing irreducibly complex. Only then can you really argue that consistency with their stated position implies something nasty about their god and really hold them to it.

You need to do this because IC isn't a valid concept to begin with, so you can't really argue that it's self-evidently true. The argument has to be about internal consistency within the IDer's position and not external consistency with reality, because ID doesn't have external consistency.

This is true. I was just using the most popular conception of IC in that taking a part away from a multipart system causes none of them to function. I know the concept of IC is bunk, am just playing devil's advocate with creationist's own legos, so to speak.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Creationists, particularly those of you who say God is good and that irreducibly complex systems can't evolve,

In another thread we started raising some questions that were more tongue-in-cheek than anything, but now that I think about it, it seems like a question that needs to be answered.

Some examples that we brought up were Plasmodium falciparum and the HIV virus, amongst others.

Did God design these things? If so, how can He be said to be benevolent?

If not, these disease-causing agents incorporate irreducibly complex systems for evading immune systems -- would you have to admit that irreducibly complex systems can evolve?

Michael Behe is pretty quick to talk about the immune system itself and bacterial flagella, but what if someone brought to table the "design of torture," the irreducibly complex systems of organisms whose sole purpose is to reproduce while causing unimaginable pain and suffering in people?

For instance, Plasmodium falciparum evades the immune system by hiding in eurythrocytes (red blood cells). But the spleen destroys red blood cells, so they use "hook" shaped structures to latch onto the side of vessel walls. However, the immune system is able to identify and destroy these hooks over time, so Plasmodium actually goes through a "cycle" of different hook shapes from a genetic "database," always staying a step ahead of the immune system.

These methods for evading the immune system are irreducibly complex: without hooks, the organism gets destroyed in the spleen; furthermore if the hooks don't periodically switch out the immune system destroys the hooks.

Is this an example of a benevolent creator's design?

Or can irreducibly complex systems evolve?

Seems like a conundrum to me -- that is, if you're a creationist who believes in a benevolent God and denies that irreducibly complex systems can evolve.

EDIT: I just realize I never mentioned it. Plasmodium is the critter that causes malaria, so you can understand the scope of suffering that this thing causes in people.

You've made a fancy argument that ignores a very basic Biblical concept: God has more than one characteristic. Why is so hard to grasp that God can be minded to do good and one hand and vindictive on the other when situations call for either?

 

[evolved yet?]

That would make him not benevolent.

 

[Meow Mix]

You've made a fancy argument that ignores a very basic Biblical concept: God has more than one characteristic. Why is so hard to grasp that God can be minded to do good and one hand and vindictive on the other when situations call for either?

My argument was directed at people who believe in a benevolent creator, not a petty, megalomaniacal, malevolent demon. If you take the malevolent demon approach then my argument clearly doesn't apply.

 

[evolved yet?]

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would make him not benevolent.

Please explain.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

My argument was directed at people who believe in a benevolent creator, not a petty, megalomaniacal, malevolent demon. If you take the malevolent demon approach then my argument clearly doesn't apply.

This does not address my point but did afford you a chance to make an irrelevant cheap shot based on your misunderstanding.

 

[Meow Mix]

This does not address my point but did afford you a chance to make an irrelevant cheap shot based on your misunderstanding.

Granted, it was a little underhanded and excessive. Sorry.

Alright, let's discuss this.

In what sense is this the work of benevolence:

Or how about Leishmaniasis?

How is this the work of a benevolent deity?