The second post has descended upon this platform with undeniable alacrity.
To maintain consistency and continuity, I respectfully request that the esteemed reader engage with this second post as soon as possible after reading the first. Hopefully, this will help with comprehension. It is to be remembered that the human brain is a vain and frail vessel and responds well to prompt succession, as an aid to ultimate understanding. Only then can a man succeed on the path to wisdom and, mayhap, enlightenment. Delay will foster mind lapse, and the connection between the two posts will be lost in a web of synapses that often misfire. Do not fall into the trap of delay and procrastination, as this will foster a slothful mind and, dare I say, a laggard, indolent countenance. Brook no delay and engage the posts in dogged sequence. Only a fool would digest the second before the first. Remain diligent for distractions and those who will divert you from my noble/ignoble composition. Remember, detractors and wastrels abound, ready to pounce and endeavour to veer you from your august literary quest.
Some say I'm an unrequited genius. Why others aver that I'm a mad old man with a tenuous grip on reality who bothers check-out girls in Tesco. Only you can decide!
We have an evolutionary mechanism that thrives on waste and inefficiency. It is hard to square these problems with the Christian conception of god. Could god not have come up with a mechanism that negated universal suffering and waste? Mayhap god has limitations on his powers and must follow natural laws. This explanation does not sit well with the theologian, but they are unable to offer a solution that is satisfactory to both the biologist and the theologian.
There is a common misconception that evolution is working toward 'perfection'. This would imply that evolution is somehow a directive process seeking a final goal. However, this is not the case; organisms are not optimal for many reasons. Often, structural limitations lead to suboptimal solutions for a specific function. Examples abound. Let us take the human body, for instance, and examine an anatomical feature that, from an engineering perspective, could be improved. I chose this particular example as it is the bane of many older men. Recently, I had a PSA test, due to my age, and luckily, I'm fine, for now.
The male prostate provides fluids for the ejaculate. It is a walnut-sized organ that surrounds the urethra, which conducts urine from the bladder to the outside. The prostate contributes nothing to the urinary process, yet there it sits. Unfortunately, not only is this organ prone to cancer in older men, but it also has a propensity to enlarge as we age, with the obvious adverse symptoms as it slowly strangles the urethra. Surely, god in his infinite wisdom and love could have devised an alternative anatomical location. A good engineer would have placed the prostate within the scrotal sac, next to the sacred/sacral testes. The products that leak from both organs act in concert to ensure the proliferation of the next generation. The prostate's position is notably sub-optimal. Why the prostate is positioned thusly is hard to fathom. Mayhap there was no selective pressure in the past to remedy the situation, as men did not live long enough to suffer the consequences of natural selection that could effect change. Perhaps it provides evidence that god is female with a wicked sense of humour. This example is just one of many instances where there is room for anatomical improvements in the human body. This is also true for many animal species. A quick Google search will reveal a plethora of such examples.
The above shows that evolution is capricious and often defies logical analysis. Optimisation is not a quest. Natural selection may produce a solution that, while not perfect, is good enough for the circumstances and purpose. The critical point to make is that if an Intelligent Designer had a role in the process, he did a piss poor job. In the final analysis, it makes it difficult to square theological evolution with naturalistic evolution. There is no need for a supernatural guiding hand, as nature has the whole situation covered. The theologian must either accept the evidence and suffer the consequences or retreat into the presbytery, and confront matters best suited to their temperament and intellect, and leave science to the scientists. What say ye?
I'll leave the last word to Darwin. Take note and heed.
“what a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!” & “there seems to be too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”
Fine words indeed, Mr D.
No comments:
Post a Comment