Selective Design: Revisiting the Theory (and fact) of Evolution

It's chilly and rainy outside here on Florida's West coast, so it's a good day to stay inside and revisit an old topic.

On social media a friend and former colleague posted a video depicting a snake-mimicking caterpillar that inhabits Peru, South America and surrounding countries. When agitated or threatened, this caterpillar, which is the larva of a Sphinx Hawk Moth (Hermeroplanes Triptolemus), pulls its legs in and turns its hindquarters upside down, and the result highly resembles a snake. But not just any snake(and this is key), it resembles a green tree viper. Why is this important? It's important because said viper is a snake that also inhabits that region. This is evolution, aka, adapting to one's environment, in action.

Anyway, I remarked that this was an example of evolution underneath this friend's post, and lo and behold, someone retorted...."Now THAT is intelligent design. Awesome."

Since I had a pretty good feeling that my friend would jump in at any time, I watched and waited, and sure enough, the author of the I.D. comment was challenged by way of comparison, in this case, having it pointed out to him how the human eye, which is presumably "designed" by the same "Designer", falls way short of "perfection". And of course, my friend makes a good and fair point when pointing this out.

It also begs this question: If this caterpillar's defense mechanism is an example of "awesome" design, then can we conclude that any caterpillar that does not or cannot mimic a viper, and subsequently gets eaten by predators in nature, is an example of poor design? If not, why not? Why the double standard?

So, the mistake that I.D. proponents make is that they look at what they call "design" in nature, selectively. This of course is a form of cherry-picking. That is, they look at all the astonishing and/or advantageous attributes of things found in nature and insist the credit must to an "Intelligent Designer", while totally ignoring the seemingly odd or downright shoddy "design" that is also seen in nature. Ironically, this even includes us homo sapiens, who we are to believe are the "crowning jewel" creation of the supposed "Designer".

Let's see, eyesight that craps-out midlife. Intelligent design? A breathing passage that's right next to a passage for swallowing food and water? Organs and teeth that we don't even need? A "tailbone"? Intelligent?

But anyway, when challenged, the I.D. proponent, aka, creationist - because let's face it, what we're talking here is "creationism" all gussied up - resorts to ad hominems and victim-playing. After multiple exchanges, he finally writes....

"These posts can go on for days. I'm just not that interested in putting people down because of their beliefs".

Not surprisingly, not one of the three other people in the conversation put him down. But of course, these are the sorts of things said when someone knows they've been defeated, or at least, it's the sort things said when someone can't produce evidence to back their biblical views. Emphasis on "their", since the views of believers seem to be as unique as fingerprints. In any case, this was no exception, and yet, ironically, we were told that we must not know anything about religion when the subject shifted to the bible.

In this particular case, this Christian accepted that things evolved within their "kinds", but he kept shifting to the whole "something from nothing" argument, which is not related, since one topic deals with origins; the other topic, diversity.

The bible unambiguously delineates that animals that "crawl on the ground" were created as is. Genesis doesn't mention anything about bugs or insects "evolving," much less how some of them developed the wherewithal to mimic deadly snakes. But yet, believers will cite certain passages, then they'll extrapolate until it ends up supporting what they want to believe(and by extension, ignore what they don't want to believe).

This is how apologetics work. But in the end, the I.D. guy was right about one thing, that is, these sort of posts can go on for days. What doesn't go on for days is the part where disingenuous tactics are used. There is no mystery here. A dose of facts usually nips that part in the bud. No one is fooled except for those fooling themselves.