When observing the complex beauty of the natural world and the diversity of plants and animals and how each species’ characteristics seem perfectly tailored for a particular lifestyle, it is not difficult to jump into the conclusion that everything was designed.
I was staring at a small clover garden, admiring the structured leaf formation and how it uniformly blanketed the patch of ground when I realized that underneath the miniature canopy of clover crowns must be a thriving community of insects and other tiny creatures. And beneath the ground dozens of earthworms must be burrowing and ingesting dead matter and minute soil particles, aerating the earth and secreting humus and minerals needed by the clover plant to grow. At this point it makes sense to imagine that this nice little ecosystem must have been orchestrated by an intelligent and loving being.
However, also living underground are thousands of ants, and ants feed on earthworms. Anybody who has seen a live earthworm being attacked by red ants knows that it is a slow and very painful death, the worm writhing and rolling and curling in a feeble attempt to escape the tormenting mandibles that tear all over its soft flesh, each bite leaving behind a burning toxin. It must be one of the most excruciating deaths an animal can experience (although perhaps not as agonizingly slow as that of a caterpillar whose body is being leisurely devoured from the inside by a growing wasp larva). Even if one believes that earthworms have souls that will be eternally rewarded in Earthworm Heaven for all their sufferings under the earth, it is absurd to conceive of an intelligent designer.
A lot of people especially those living comfortably in civilized societies are not aware of this life and death struggle among the lower animals. Most have not even considered that the burgers they’re munching came from a once-living cow whose throat was slit with a very sharp industrial blade, causing it to stumble and thrash around as its air sacs get filled with its own blood, flooding its lungs and simulating a slow drowning effect that would last several minutes until the cow finally expires. Or that the drumstick they’re nibbling came from a chicken who endured its entire short life in cramped captivity, injected with chemicals to speed up growth for early slaughter.
When you’re on top of the food chain (and blissfully oblivious to the great inconvenience you are causing those below), it is easy to be overwhelmed by a feeling of gratefulness, and there even seems to be an almost instinctive need to seek an object of gratitude. But imagine if we happened to be the cow or the chicken, or the earthworm for that matter. I wonder if gratefulness would come as naturally.
If there was an intelligent designer, animals wouldn’t have to feed on one another. Every creature would be responsible for its own photosynthesis and capable of absorbing moisture and minerals from the air. Predation and parasitism would be totally unnecessary. All animals would also be able to fly, swim, run and burrow, freely frolicking across the bounds of the earth, fully enjoying the planet’s blessings.
And maybe this is why a lot of people believe (or would like to believe) that we have a soul. Perhaps unconsciously we think of the spirit as the perfect form of existence, totally free and having no need for transport, shelter, clothing, air, water, or food. And no need for food means no need for other animals to die just so we can live. The earth would be a true paradise where no creature has to walk through the valley of the shadow of death. If there was an intelligent designer, existence wouldn’t be as cruel, and the struggle for life wouldn’t be as bloodthirsty.
God is so intelligent that he created the ingredients for a big bang and then he ceased to exist. What an intelligent being! hehehe. Just ignore me :))
How come the replies here are posted as hours ago?
Yes…that's why I said not all. 🙂 But maybe you have a count?
And by the way, the forces that govern this thing is nature. Or, shall we say, the universe, as a consequence of it's inception…
What is one of the by products of assimilation? Waste. Will there be animals that will eat that waste? maybe not anymore beacause they are self sufficient.
What if an intelligent animal suddenly realizes that his finite world has only such an amount of that particular substance he needs to grow? He tries to secure his claim to that. What if others like him think of the same thing and the other does not give any because he knows he needs it? There shall be conflict. What if he really, really needs it: will he not try to get it? will the owner not try to fight for it? Maybe again?
And if they fight, and one of them dies? God will still be cruel because he allowed this to happen, and by the time that those animals struggling to get the last of that important substance have been starved from the lack of the same, another will take their place in that ecosystem! Is this not what is supposed to happen? Ganoon pa rin…
If I were the Designer, I would make all creatures capable of photosynthesis and of absorbing moisture and minerals from the air (as I mentioned in the article). And I am not even omniscient but I was able to think of that (well, with the help of Wes from whom I got the idea). Now imagine what an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity could do. I'm sure he could come up with the solution for waste disposal (come to think of it, if animals were capable of photosynthesis there might be no more need to defecate).
Di ba yung nakapicture sa taas eh shamrock at hindi clover?
A self sufficient, self-sustaining organism is quite a grandiose idea as proof/ requirement of a benevolent god. But then, imagine these creatures asserting their territory and niche in the ecosystem. If they have intelligence, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are also sympathetic to each other. Even if the have the same intelligence level, they will still "think freely". You have mentioned "animals" so that means there are others of a different nature. So, conflicts will still arise. As we all know the law of conservation of matter: it is neither created nor destroyed, it is transformed from form to another. Enter these scenarios:
Good timing! I just finished a writer's guide my editor-from-hell forced me to read (as if I had problems with my grammar *grumble grumble*.
This is a case of a subjunctive. Both "was" and "were" are equally grammatically correct and have exactly the same purpose of describing counter-factual situations. And according to the manual, the subjunctive doesn't even matter even if the subject changes (I, you, he etc).
"If I were you" and "If I was you" are equally correct and equivalent grammar and intent-wise, though formal writing prefers the "were" form only on grounds of style.
Thanks for the grammar tips everyone! 😀
Wow, Frank, Wes, and I replied within minutes of each other! And with the same sentiment, too. Listen to fate, Jong 😉
I say keep the title. The subjunctive mood is in its death throes, and its perfectly ok to use "was" instead of "were" in informal writing. The question is, "WHO are you writing for?" 😉
Hate to be grammar Nazi, but the correct verb in the title would be WERE. To say that "If there WAS…" would already imply its existence was already acknowledged and given.
Hmmm…thanks Gundam, although I'm not so sure which is correct. Anybody else want to share their opinion? 🙂
I unfortunately agree w/ Gundam on this :p
Ouch! LOL. Anybody else want to share their opinion before I edit the title? 🙂
Gundam wrote: 'To say that “If there WAS…” would already imply its existence was already acknowledged and given.'
-But that's what the IF is for – to render its existence conditional, is it not?
Well, it's nothing as bad as the misuse of "not unless" or the non-existent "irregardless". =)
totally innocent question: why did you have to qualify your statement with an "unfortunately"…? 😀
*peace!* 🙂
I think Sinisterspark was just being nice. 🙂 And Sinisterspark IS nice. Imagine, she volunteered to be our regular news anchor! 🙂
@Sinisterspark: Don't forget tomorrow's TOP 10! 😀
Thanks for the generous comment, f241vc15. 🙂
@Frank: our minds are too finite to grasp God's infinite wisdom in his All-Loving, All-Knowing, and All-Powerful existence. (Poe)
@innerminds
nice short piece you have here. Quite a good analogy, observation, and conclusion.
@frank
I quite agree. We all know at the very least that omniscience and omnipotence are logically mutually exclusive.
Like I like to say, for the world we have to exist, God cannot be All-Loving, All-Knowing, and All-Powerful. If he exists, at least one of these three must be missing.
Gods are alien overlords coming back to harvest the crap out of us.
I always loved that show :p
Hmm. It seems that you're arguing that the "designer" is not compassionate, not necessarily that it is not intelligent.
Good point, Sinisterspark. I guess I was subconsciously equating the Intelligent Designer to a Loving Creator.