I should like to have a word with the intelligent designer if I may.

Specifically, I wish to lodge a complaint with regards to the mammalian birth canal. In the case of most mammals, it seems to work well enough to ensure survival of the species. However, the difficulty lies with the size of the human cranium at birth. A professor Glenn-Peter Sætre at the University of Oslo has this to say about the human birth canal:

[quote]The main problem is that the birth canal passes through the pelvis, where space is limited. However, evolution has also equipped humans with big brains - which creates the need for a big skull. The skull simply cannot pass through the pelvis if it is too big, and evolution has solved this problem by allowing humans to give birth to children at a much more premature stage than in related species like the chimpanzee and the gorilla.[/quote]

Why [i]would[/i] an allegedly flawless designer create such a flawed system?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

AkioTsukino · M

That doesn't make any sense that I can see. Evolution has provided the flawed system for us to survive as a species but the creator didn't? It's the same outcome, the question is simply how it came about.

CorvusBlackthorne · M

@AkioTsukino It makes sense when you understand that evolution is not a being with intent, but rather a process; a struggle, if you will. When a species develops a method of coping, however inadequate, which ensures the survival of the next generation, that method is passed on. Charles Darwin got it wrong in that one sense. It is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the barely adequate.

However, you have not answered my question.

AkioTsukino · M

@CorvusBlackthorne Okay. Then either evolution or the creator produced an inadequate means of survival? We just happened to survive to write about it or it was designed adequately, correct? I would say the inadequacy was conjectural, wouldn't you? At best.

CorvusBlackthorne · M

@AkioTsukino The inadequacy is quite well documented. The infant mortality rate amongst humans has only been reduced relatively recently as a result of medical advanced.

AkioTsukino · M

@CorvusBlackthorne Well documented? Okay. But the alleged creators purpose for mankind and his history since creation is documented much better and that was the question. Adam and all of his offspring are condemned to death, but will ultimately survive in a general sense. That is, mankind in general. The pain of childbirth is certainly debatable, though. (Genesis 3:16)

I wouldn't want to get into that without carefully examining the prophetic application of Genesis 3:15-16. That actually gets much more difficult than an interpretation at face value would allow, but, I doubt that that was the approach you were taking. Just something to think about.

CorvusBlackthorne · M

@AkioTsukino [quote]But the alleged creators purpose for mankind and his history since creation is documented much better...[/quote]
Not really. There is only one source of dubious origin.

[quote]I wouldn't want to get into that without carefully examining the prophetic application of Genesis 3:15-16. That actually gets much more difficult that a interpretation at face value would allow, but, I doubt that that was the approach you were taking. Just something to think about.[/quote]
You are correct that I was not addressing any but a literal interpretation of Genesis. I wish to educate those who think evolutionary theory is a tool of Satan.

AkioTsukino · M

@CorvusBlackthorne [quote]Not really. There is only one source of dubious origin.[/quote]

Only one? What one is that?

[quote]I wish to educate those who think evolutionary theory is a tool of Satan.[/quote]

Oh, I think Satan could do better than evolution.

CorvusBlackthorne · M

@AkioTsukino [quote]Only one? What one is that?[/quote]
The Bible.

AkioTsukino · M

@CorvusBlackthorne The thing about the Bible is that it is actually a collection of 66 "books" with over 40 different authors over a period of thousands of years. Compare that cohesion with, let's say, 50 years of science textbooks.

ShadowWolf · 31-35, M

@CorvusBlackthorne So you are ignoring Hinduism, Shinto, Norse, and Islam? All of which have their own doctrine.