Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Rational Agnostic]

Aside from the mountains of evidence for evolution, I often struggle to understand how anyone can believe in an intelligent and benevolent god who designed species when reading about phenomena like this. The Ichneumon wasp is a species of wasp that bores a hole into a caterpillar in order to lay its eggs inside of the caterpillar. The wasp also injects the caterpillar so that it is paralyzed, yet still feels pain. The wasps then hatch inside of the caterpillar and eat it alive from the inside out, while the caterpillar can do nothing. Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this. This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer. Yet, when viewed from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense. Natural selection produces results that can turn out to be incredibly beautiful and give the illusion of benevolent design, and it can also produce horrible, nasty results like this that give the illusion of a cruel designer. In reality, Natural Selection is blind and mindless, and it all makes sense when we consider this. As Dawkins put it, "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."

Ichneumonidae - Wikipedia

 

[whirlingmerc]

Aside from the mountains of evidence for evolution, I often struggle to understand how anyone can believe in an intelligent and benevolent god who designed species when reading about phenomena like this. The Ichneumon wasp is a species of wasp that bores a hole into a caterpillar in order to lay its eggs inside of the caterpillar. The wasp also injects the caterpillar so that it is paralyzed, yet still feels pain. The wasps then hatch inside of the caterpillar and eat it alive from the inside out, while the caterpillar can do nothing. Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this. This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer. Yet, when viewed from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense. Natural selection produces results that can turn out to be incredibly beautiful and give the illusion of benevolent design, and it can also produce horrible, nasty results like this that give the illusion of a cruel designer. In reality, Natural Selection is blind and mindless, and it all makes sense when we consider this. As Dawkins put it, "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."

Ichneumonidae - Wikipedia

We live in a originally good but sin broken world in need of redemption. You are describing a consequence of death entering the world.

 

[Audie]

We live in a originally good but sin broken world in need of redemption. You are describing a consequence of death entering the world.

Clearly, no benevolent designer.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Challenge for evolutionists. Bees need flowers to get pollen and flowers need bees to pollinate. But both did not evolve at the same time. So how could the first bees survive without flowers or the first flowers survive without bees depending on which you think came first? This is only one of many examples of living things that depend on each but did not evolve at the same time.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We live in a originally good but sin broken world in need of redemption. You are describing a consequence of death entering the world.

What do caterpillars and wasps have anything to do with it?

 

[Thinking Homer]

As a naturalist, what is causing you to say that this is a cruel process? If you say it is because of your morals, you will have to explain to me where your morals come from, according to your naturalistic worldview.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Challenge for evolutionists. Bees need flowers to get pollen and flowers need bees to pollinate. But both did not evolve at the same time. So how could the first bees survive without flowers or the first flowers survive without bees depending on which you think came first? This is only one of many examples of living things that depend on each but did not evolve at the same time.

Why couldn't they have evolved together?

Before you can demand an answer you need to support that rather foolish claim.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why couldn't they have evolved together?

Before you can demand an answer you need to support that rather foolish claim.

Evolution takes millions of years. Very unlikely both evolved at the same time. And this is just one example. More likely they were created together. Or maybe someone should show evidence they both evolved at the same time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution takes millions of years. Very unlikely both evolved at the same time. And this is just one example. More likely they were created together. Or maybe someone should show evidence they both evolved at the same time.

Why is it unlikely? Unsupported statements are worthless in a debate. On the other hand you could do a Google search on the evolution of the bee. But since you can't support your claims one iota, and we both now know it let me save you some time:

The Beguiling History of Bees [Excerpt]

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And a search of the Bible shows God created flowers and bees. I do not trust your sources and you do not trust mine,. We are back to square one.

 

[columbus]

flowers need bees to pollinate.

No they don't. Flowers evolved long before bees. The majority of flowering plants still get along without help from bees.
Some evolved a symbiotic relationship with insects, but not most. Bees evolved to utilize the ones that did.
This is not difficult to understand if you study biology a bit.
Tom

 

[exchemist]

And a search of the Bible shows God created flowers and bees. I do not trust your sources and you do not trust mine,. We are back to square one.

But I thought you were offering a challenge to scientists (or "evolutionists" as you quaintly call them). How does quoting the bible at them contribute? Surely if you are challenging them, you need to be prepared to meet them on their own ground and look for weaknesses in their argument?

Or is this another example of a creationist who isn't interested in listening to the answers to the question they ask?

 

[ChristineM]

Challenge for evolutionists. Bees need flowers to get pollen and flowers need bees to pollinate. But both did not evolve at the same time. So how could the first bees survive without flowers or the first flowers survive without bees depending on which you think came first? This is only one of many examples of living things that depend on each but did not evolve at the same time.

Other insects that did evolve before bees pollinated plants. Lager animals brushing against plants pick up pollen then against other plants.
The wind carries pollen from plant to plant.
In some cases water carries pollen.
Flowering plants were pollinated in early history In exactly the same was as they are now . Plants dont strictly need bees, but bees are very efficient pollinators.

 

[Deeje]

Challenge for evolutionists. Bees need flowers to get pollen and flowers need bees to pollinate. But both did not evolve at the same time. So how could the first bees survive without flowers or the first flowers survive without bees depending on which you think came first? This is only one of many examples of living things that depend on each but did not evolve at the same time.

Here's a favourite of mine....the orchid wasp....

How does a mindless plant think up such a clever ruse to ensure its pollination? The chemical attraction (pheromones) of the orchid to the wasp is identical to that of a female wasp ready to mate....

This is a classic case of design....pure and simple.

 

[ChristineM]

Here's a favourite of mine....the orchard wasp....

How does a mindless plant think up such a clever ruse to ensure its pollination? The chemical attraction (pheromones) of the orchard to the wasp is identical to that of a female wasp ready to mate....

This is a classic case of design....pure and simple.

No its not, its a classic case of evolution

 

[columbus]

How does a mindless plant think up such a clever ruse to ensure its pollination?

Plants don't "think up" anything.
The ones that more closely resembled wasp pheromones reproduced more successfully than their siblings. Millions of generations later the ones that are still going are the ones who near perfectly reproduced the pheromones.
This is easy to understand with a bit of biology.
Tom

 

[Deeje]

Plants don't "think up" anything.
The ones that more closely resembled wasp pheromones reproduced more successfully than their siblings. Millions of generations later the ones that are still going are the ones who near perfectly reproduced the pheromones.
This is easy to understand with a bit of biology.
Tom

So the plants just naturally produced the exact pheromone that would attract the wasp? How did that happen in the first place? And how did the orchid know that a clever replica of the female wasp would be a good idea as well?
Add a bit of twisted biology and presto!

I'm sorry but that is just pathetic reasoning IMO.

 

[74x12]

Aside from the mountains of evidence for evolution, I often struggle to understand how anyone can believe in an intelligent and benevolent god who designed species when reading about phenomena like this. The Ichneumon wasp is a species of wasp that bores a hole into a caterpillar in order to lay its eggs inside of the caterpillar. The wasp also injects the caterpillar so that it is paralyzed, yet still feels pain. The wasps then hatch inside of the caterpillar and eat it alive from the inside out, while the caterpillar can do nothing. Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this. This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer. Yet, when viewed from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense. Natural selection produces results that can turn out to be incredibly beautiful and give the illusion of benevolent design, and it can also produce horrible, nasty results like this that give the illusion of a cruel designer. In reality, Natural Selection is blind and mindless, and it all makes sense when we consider this. As Dawkins put it, "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."

Ichneumonidae - Wikipedia

It's all about balance. Population control. Caterpillars don't feel much pain and their lives are short anyway. Besides, all nature is meant to teach us wisdom. We learn about ourselves and about spiritual things from watching nature both the good and the evil.

There are things that can bore a hole in us and lay eggs. Then it will eat us alive and paralyze us even though we feel pain. Of course I speak of mental and spiritual things rather than physical ones.

So learning from nature is part of wisdom.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Thank you 74x12. People are eaten alive everyday- mentally and emotionally. Mainly the result of a world that has turned away from God. There is no need to try to explain it to someone who has already made up their mind and refuse to see the evidence of God.

 

[Shaul]

Aside from the mountains of evidence for evolution, I often struggle to understand how anyone can believe in an intelligent and benevolent god who designed species when reading about phenomena like this. The Ichneumon wasp is a species of wasp that bores a hole into a caterpillar in order to lay its eggs inside of the caterpillar. The wasp also injects the caterpillar so that it is paralyzed, yet still feels pain. The wasps then hatch inside of the caterpillar and eat it alive from the inside out, while the caterpillar can do nothing. Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this. This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer. Yet, when viewed from a naturalistic perspective, it makes sense. Natural selection produces results that can turn out to be incredibly beautiful and give the illusion of benevolent design, and it can also produce horrible, nasty results like this that give the illusion of a cruel designer. In reality, Natural Selection is blind and mindless, and it all makes sense when we consider this. As Dawkins put it, "Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent."

Ichneumonidae - Wikipedia

Don’t see how this is cruel. On what basis do you?