Evolutionists, and the 'Whining Boy Blues'

In this post I want to comment on the unrealistic expectations most evolutionists seem to have about the creation model. I'm going to quote an example of this and then comment on it.

Darwin on Offense II: Strategy Sessions 10/17/2005

'The Geological Society of America, normally concerned with technical details of rocks and how many millions or billions of years old they are, devoted two “expansive sessions” at its annual meeting Oct 16-17, with 24 separate presentations dealing with strategies to oppose intelligent design (ID).
So how does a scientist or teacher defend evolution against trained attackers?

“Don’t,” suggests geoscientist Donald Wise from the University of Massachusetts. Instead, go after the deep flaws in ID. Take the human body, for instance, he says in his GSA presentation. It’s a great argument against ID. Anyone who has ever had back pain or clogged sinuses can testify to this.''

- That's so silly it's almost impossible to believe. Is Wise living in the real world? The Genesis account claims man was created 6-10,000 years ago. There have been many generations since then; with numerous mutations in man. (Not to mention the Fall, with whatever physical repercussions that involved.) Obviously the man of today is not the man god created; but a somewhat 'damaged' descendent. But the fact some people have back problems (usually caused by their own unhealthy lifestyles) says nothing about how well designed the back is, or how many people don't have back problems.

- That clogged sinuses refute ID is too silly for words. The bible doesn't present a fairy tale; life on earth isn't a kindergarten. The bible shows man's life as both wonderful and difficult. I see no way it could be otherwise. We don't live in the pages of a book (or in some ivory tower) but have our existence in a physical world. The fact god created man doesn't magically do away with entropy, mutation, or disease. The fact god created man doesn't prevent man from abusing his body.

- Where do people like Wise get these child like ideas from? I can't imagine where they get this idea the doctrine of creation means everyone would have some kind of perfect life... or be some kind of super hero immune from all problems. They certainly don't get it from the bible. I'm astounded that they seem to imagine they've made a meaningful critique of biblical creation with this kind of drivel.
Maybe Wise (when he gets a respite from his back pains) can tell us where the bible says creation means a trouble free life of physical perfection.

- This is a variation on the 'arguments' dawkins has made over the years on how badly the eye is designed. (And I thought mother nature did all things well :=) Apart from the fact dawkins had no idea what he was talking about, the complaints were silly; based on abysmal ignorance of the eye. In the 20 years or so since he first made this unwarranted claim there have been an enormous number of discoveries about the eye that blow his 'argument' out of the water; and many more discoveries await.

People like Wise make the same mistake repeatedly, and it's this; they focus on some single aspect of an organ (etc.) and isolate it, not only from the organ in total, but from the real world. They treat the organ as if it were a machine; and a simple machine whose parts work independently of each other. An organ like the eye isn't anything like that; so the 'analogy' is all wrong. In an organ like the eye you can't isolate functions and optimize them. The eye has many 'parts' that all work together; it's not one aspect that is important but the overall performance... not in a lab, but in the real world. If Dawkins understands this he gives no evidence of it that I've seen.
- Let's take the bad back example. You can't isolate a 'back' from the person, and you can't isolate the person from the real world or from the history of the world. ie. a 'back' isn't an independent unit (some kind of a machine). The back was beautifully designed; like all other aspects of the human body. The human body was designed to 'work' in a wide variety of environments and situations. It was designed to function for many kinds of persons and situations; e.g. professors or farmers. The back has to serve many different kinds of situations if I can put it like that. Obviously the design will be more or less 'ideal' for some occupations, for some kinds of activities. What we see in the design of the back is great flexibility; a kind of 'one size fits all' approach. You can't have a single design that works ideally for the desk bound academic and the fisherman or farmer.

Notes;
1. Whining boy blue is an old blues tune, that I first heard on a recording by that immortal duo 'Hot Tuna'. It seems to fit evolutionists and their endless complaints about creation, and their refusal to give glory to the Creator. (That was back in the days I was an evolutionist, and couldn't imagine anything different.)
2. The book that woke me out of my metaphysical slumber was 'Origins and Destiny' by Robert Gange. I noticed recently that the book is available free online.