Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[shunyadragon]

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

I do not believe the natural suffering is incompatible with the existence of God and Creation. This example is only one of the whole panarama of natural suffering throughout the millennia. The problem is the anthropomorphizing the nature of God with the nature of our physical existence.

Life is the river of Creation on earth and likely other distant worlds. Physical suffering is a natural part of this river of life. It is spiritual suffering that is the self-inflicted suffering by humans on humans, and the unnatural suffering of life on earth

Early Christian apologists struggled with this and blamed this suffering on humans for the guilt of the Original Sin and the Fall to explain the cause of all suffering in the animal kingdom and humanity. This archaic mythological explanation was necessary to explain a perfect Creation corrupted by humans, is no longer remotely viable, but the doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity remain attached to the bizzaro explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I think that you are conflating honeybees with all bees. Bees themselves predate flowers. The evolution to drink nectar in some species appeared after flowers evolved. You might want to check the link that I posted. Bees consumed pollen, and they still do, before they consumed nectar. They still consume pollen. It is their source of protein etc. Nectar is their go juice.

Plants broadcast pollen in the past, a rather wasteful method of reproducing Animals that consume pollen would also inadvertently transfer some from plant to plant lowering the amount of pollen that they needed to make. Eventually colored flowers evolved since they lured pollen collectors even more and then nectar.

To date when people claim a trait could not have evolved it has always been an argument from ignorance and most of them have been answered since or the answer was known even before the creationist argument was made.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

Did the caterpillars sin?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Apparently you didn't read my post. I specifically said that it is *not* a cruel process, but that it appears to be when viewed through the lens of a theistic worldview. In reality, nature is neither cruel nor benevolent, just "pitilessly indifferent" as Dawkins aptly put it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

You're missing the point. I never said it is cruel. I said that it would be cruel to deliberately design a process like this. Without a designer, it's not cruel.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

You have no idea whether caterpillars feel a lot of pain or not. In any case, why would a benevolent being DESIGN a process like this? For instance, the wasp could at least kill the caterpillar first before boring the hole and laying the eggs. But it doesn't. Why would a benevolent designer design such a gruesome process?

 

[Glaurung]

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.

Because when I go outside I see a world, a coherent world that is brimming with teleological purpose. A blind, indifferent and ultimately absurd universe is simply not what I see when I go outside. But I guess it all comes down to basic assumptions. If a blind, indifferent and absurd universe is what you're primed to see, then no surprise that's what you'll see.

Now, unless God were an evil sadist, there is no way that he would design a process like this.

Job 38:4

This type of process is simply incompatible with the existence of an intelligent and benevolent designer.

And you know this how?

Morality concerns the actions of rational creatures. It is about the choices we make and our final and eternal disposition (towards or against God) at death. The purpose of this world isn't to be one without suffering (animal or human) but to be a stage wherein human beings work out their lives and decide to accept or reject their final end. (God). The world is fallen, but not broken. And it will be done away with once the full course of history has played out according to the divine plan. Revelation 21:4

 

[InChrist]

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

All creation is impacted and damaged by sin. This is a fallen world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because when I go outside I see a world, a coherent world that is brimming with teleological purpose. A blind, indifferent and ultimately absurd universe is simply not what I see when I go outside. But I guess it all comes down to basic assumptions. If a blind, indifferent and absurd universe is what you're primed to see, then no surprise that's what you'll see.

And yet I am betting you can't name one valid "teleological purpose" or anything "absurd" about what is expected if one accepts reality. It would be better if you could list your evidence instead of unsupported nonsense and mischaracterizations of what others accept.

Job 38:4

That was a lame excuse in that myth and it is lame today.

And you know this how?

Morality concerns the actions of rational creatures. It is about the choices we make and our final and eternal disposition (towards or against God) at death. The purpose of this world isn't to be one without suffering (animal or human) but to be a stage wherein human beings work out their lives and decide to accept or reject their final end. (God). The world is fallen, but not broken. And it will be done away with once the full course of history has played out according to the divine plan. Revelation 21:4

He appears to be applying the laws of logic to the problem. By the way, if you want to make the "fallen world" claim you have put a huge burden of proof upon yourself that no theist has ever seemed to meet. It appears that you have no answer to the OP. This post was largely a duck and dodge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All creation is impacted and damaged by sin. This is a fallen world.

As I just pointed out, if you want to claim that this is a fallen world the burden of proof is upon you. And it is hardly a valid excuse for suffering that some animals have to go through.

This is another duck and dodge. Why not be honest and simply admit that you have no answer?

 

[InChrist]

As I just pointed out, if you want to claim that this is a fallen world the burden of proof is upon you. And it is hardly a valid excuse for suffering that some animals have to go through.

This is another duck and dodge. Why not be honest and simply admit that you have no answer?

That is my honest answer. I don't have to prove anything and can't anyway, concerning the spiritual state of this world, to you who denies any spiritual reality. Of course, you are free to choose to consider or reject my answer.

 

[Glaurung]

And yet I am betting you can't name one valid "teleological purpose" or anything "absurd" about what is expected if one accepts reality. It would be better if you could list your evidence instead of unsupported nonsense and mischaracterizations of what others accept.

Teleology is easy to see. So much so that some biologists have tried for a long time now to strip their discourse of teleological reference. They do this because the modern world cannot abide the idea of inherent purpose, no matter how obvious because admitting of such is unconformable for those who wish to maintain a philosophical materialism.

By absurd, I mean it in the existentialist sense. Which is the idea that the world is without meaning or purpose. Existence is a brute fact that is simply inexplicable. Which is ultimately what all those who reject God must accept even if it is never articulated. Sure, you can explain things in the universe. But that there is a reality at all and that it is the way it is must be accepted as brute fact. Once one rejects the Logos, there can no basis for asserting any rhyme or reason for reality.

That was a lame excuse in that myth and it is lame today.

It answers the question. Lame projections on how the world ought to be if God were only this or that assumes far too much about the human position relative to God's. You're a particularly bright primate not even a century old. God is the eternal, timeless, all knowing and all powerful spirit who keeps all things in existence. He knows just a little more than you do.

That's not to say that one shouldn't wonder about things. But using the pretense of asking questions for what are really arrogant presumptions about how God ought to have things is another thing entirely.

He appears to be applying the laws of logic to the problem. By the way, if you want to make the "fallen world" claim you have put a huge burden of proof upon yourself that no theist has ever seemed to meet. It appears that you have no answer to the OP. This post was largely a duck and dodge.

Since his question to theist requires we presume theism, I don't have to prove squat. He's asking me how I could believe X, not for proof that X must be true.

 

[Ponder This]

Without a designer, it's not cruel.

Perhaps people simply tend to be have naive notions of morality that easily lead them into 'unsolvable' moral dilemmas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Teleology is easy to see. So much so that some biologists have tried for a long time now to strip their discourse of teleological reference. They do this because the modern world cannot abide the idea of inherent purpose, no matter how obvious because admitting of such is unconformable for those who wish to maintain a philosophical materialism.

By absurd, I mean it in the existentialist sense. Which is the idea that the world is without meaning or purpose. Existence is a brute fact that is simply inexplicable. Which is ultimately what all those who reject God must accept even if it is never articulated. Sure, you can explain things in the universe. But that there is a reality at all and that it is the way it is must be accepted as brute fact. Once one rejects the Logos, there can no basis for asserting any rhyme or reason for reality.

Nice word salad but your supported neither claim.

It answers the question. Lame projections on how the world ought to be if God were only this or that assumes far too much about the human position relative to God's. You're a particularly bright primate not even a century old. God is the eternal, timeless, all knowing and all powerful spirit who keeps all things in existence. He knows just a little more than you do.

That's not to say that one shouldn't wonder about things. But using the pretense of asking questions for what are really arrogant presumptions about how God ought to have things is another thing entirely.

It seriously does not. It only makes God look like an unjust jerk. And you do not get to assume the existence of a god either. That is another unjustified assumption. And there really is no unjustified presumption. Until one proves the existence of a god and its moral superiority it it as open to judgment as anyone else is. The God of the Old Testament is particularly vile.

Since his question to theist requires we presume theism, I don't have to prove squat. He's asking me how I could believe X, not for proof that X must be true.

Yes, that question does presume that a God exists. It does not presume that a just or even competent God exists. But even assuming that a god, let's use the small "g" version since you seem to be thinking that assuming a god exists means that your God exists. That is not the case which is why even assuming that a god exists that the burden of proof is still upon those claiming a "fallen world" have the burden of proof placed upon them by that claim.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Posting blind, but let me guess the response. "The Fall", right? How'd I do?

Standard Creationist strategy, "anything complex or beautiful in nature, evidence of God's direct intervention, anything ugly or horrifying, evidence of the fallen state of the universe, and humanity's fault in making it so". It's genius. There's absolutely no argument or evidence that can penetrate it.

 

[osgart]

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

Its just an unforseen error in a trial and error creation of an awry intelligence. The intelligence is smart enough to be dangerous, and has not at all worked out all the possibilities of its haphazard creations. Life at all costs means creatures can create ways of doing things that are cruel but unintended.

Like the christian to the roman, we are fed to the lions. Maybe the creator is more like a roman then anything benevolent. The awry intelligence displays its power and skill in a show of force.

 

[Shaul]

You're missing the point. I never said it is cruel. I said that it would be cruel to deliberately design a process like this. Without a designer, it's not cruel.

I got that. What I don’t get is why do you think it would not be cruel without a designer but would be with one. Why would a designer that did this be cruel? On what basis do you say that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got that. What I don’t get is why do you think it would not be cruel without a designer but would be with one. Why would a designer that did this be cruel? On what basis do you say that?

Nature has a lot of avoidable pain in it. I guess you could believe in an evil designer, but that would go against what the designer that most Christians and other theists believe in.

 

[Shaul]

Nature has a lot of avoidable pain in it. I guess you could believe in an evil designer, but that would go against what the designer that most Christians and other theists believe in.

You are just repeating yourself and not answering my question. Why must a design like this be called cruel? On what basis did you decide it is cruel?

 

[ecco]

It's time to ask to godless evilutionists a question they cannot answer:

There are chickens
Chickens lay eggs
Eggs become chickens
There are chickens
Chickens lay eggs
Eggs become chickens

Ha! Talk about circular "reasoning".