Suffer Little Children

[Rebmilc]

In Matthew 19:14 when Jesus said "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: For of such is the kingdom of heaven" Perhaps he was trying to teach us something about evolution and darwinism.

Okay! for a moment or two let's forget about flood evidence (or lack of), Fossil evidence (or lack of) the Geological column etc...etc.. and concentrate on something that many of us have had experience with. What's that? Why Babies of course.

37 years ago I delivered my youngest son at 2:30 in the morning. After bawling for a while he snuggled up, nestled down in my arms and promptly went to sleep. Safe, secure and totally reliant on his Mum and his Dad.

Now leaving aside all the darwinian and evolutionary jargon don't babies like my son prove that the theory is seriously flawed?

Doesn't every baby born throughout the world shake a finger at it?

Don't mammals & birds give birth to helpless and reliant young instead of strong, fit self-reliant young?

And according to Darwinism and it's very essence "survival of the fittest" aren't these young unfit to survive?

If evolution worked, after "Millions of years" wouldn't the result be that all "Higer life forms" would produce offspring that were fit and self-reliant rather than fragile and helpless like my son?

Wouldn't Darwinism predict that mammals offspring should be totally fit, self-reliant and not in need of help from good old mum and dad?

Who taught me to love my helpless totally reliant son? Who taught me to be protective and gentle towards him? And most of all who taught me along with millions of other parents that self-sacrifice for our kids works. It certainly wasn't Darwin.

It seems to me that Infantile helplessness leaves the theory of evolution up the creek without a paddle. Which really, at the end of the day is the best place for it.

Oh and by the way! My son is a Lawyer now so probably I was to self-sacrificing

[Godfearer]

Please define "Darwinism" for me.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

Did you read this. And note apparently this has not been completed since 2004. But I think it only points out my issue with the use of the term "Darwinism". The real issue that creationists have is with evolution, not "Darwinism". But throwing out Charlies name demonizes the concept and him.

Scientists have many issues with the process that Darwin described. Look at Gould for example. But the theory of evolution in its broadest sense is one that 99.99...% of scientists accept. It is supported by every branch of science.

darwinism is deception. therfore it is demonic. (the father of all lies)

it should be brought into the light and exposed for what it is.

[Rebmilc]

I just love the use of the term "darwinism", it is usually the first indication that there is a bit of a lack of knowledge on the other side. We have learned a bit more since Charlie Darwin.

Infantilism, to use your word, think about it. You want your son born fully functional? Talk to his mother. The young of most species are much smaller than the adults. Can we think of a simply physical reason? Ouch!!!

The young of social animals, including man, are often small and often relatively helpless in order to allow bonding and to provide the ability of growth and development in such a way as to foster the transmission of knowledge to the young. This is how we hunt---this is how the group works best---this you can eat---this you should not eat etc. Further I think there might be some trade off between the length of time the female carries the young, her size and her ability to function in the group. Technologically women today could for example continue on in a pregnant state until the fetus was--oh, 30 or 40 pounds and fairly self reliant, and then have a C-section (although I personally know of no women who I would even suggest that to). But perhaps one of the reasons that does not happen is---ta da--evolution. How in the world would a pregant woman carrying a 30-40 pound fetus + the associated non-baby tissues and structures walk and even be able to eat enough to support the additional caloric requirements. We are stuck with what has evolved over millions of years. As I think of it, perhaps your suggestion really works the other way--it supports evoluton.

Not all mammals are born helpless. Some animals in fact, think of some of the African plains animals, are pretty functional right away, because they need to be able to be up and running with the herd to avoid the nasty lions etc.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is catchy but misses the evolutionary point. First, evolution does not work on individuals--it works on populations. And you get to populations by not just surviving, but surviving long enough to breed and pass your genetics on.

In short, your objection does not work.

Please note that this post is from a lawyer. Tell your son to work hard and try to have fun while doing it.

Forgive me I haven't as yet figured out how to cut out pieces of a thread to reply to so I will have to quote you the hard way.(Perhaps I will evolve into it one day).

Quote: "Infantilism, to use your word"

Now where did you get that from? I never used the word infantilism in my thread, thats your word. The term I used was "Infantile Helplessness".

Quote: "Further I Think there might be some trade off"

You think? can't you do better than that? It sounds suspiciously like many other evolutionists who use the same term we think this is what happened! that's probably the reason it's still a theory.

Quote: "30 or 40 pounds and fairly self-reliant".

Do you think this as well? I'm sorry but this is pure supposition on your part.

Quote: "Not all mammals are born helpless".

But surely Jukia, the whole point is that after millions of years of evolution ALL should be born self-reliant for your theory to be viable.

Quote: "The phrase survival of the fittest is catchy but misses the evolutionary point".

Interesting statement to say the least! Does this mean that you don't believe in the concept of 'survival of the fittest'?

Quote: "And you get to populations by not just surviving, but surviving long enough to breed and pass your genetics on".

But according to evolution the babies born within each species with the 'better genes' that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, and pass on their 'better genes' to their offspring, therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit untill the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth. Why don't we see this happening?

You still haven't explained why, after 4 billion years or so of evolution we still end up with helpless babies. Surely for the theory to work, after all these millions of years of evolution there shouldn't be any species left that give birth to helpless offspring?

By the way any help would be appreciated from members telling me how to cut out parts of someones thread and paste them into my reply.

[Heavenguard]

I'd like to meet a (human) baby anywhere that is self-reliant. Perhaps we have those who can self-soothe to sleep, but that besides, feeding, clothing, mobility, even diaper changing is completely dependent on parents or others. Where does this idea of a self-reliant baby come from, if no baby to begin with is any more self-reliant than another?

The flaw in this supposition, that babies should become increasingly self-reliant through evolution, is that babies do not reproduce. Human adults reproduce, and by that point (hopefully) have grown entirely out of their infant habits and abilities. If babies were a species, rather than the juvenile state of man, then perhaps we would see babies that are self-reliant through evolution. However, since babies are the juvenile state of man, and have parents/other society members to care for human children (generally, discounting the neglected children of the world), there is no evolutionary push for infants to become self-reliant.

Following the idea of this thread, would you suppose that animals living in symbiosis is an argument against evolution?

[Heavenguard]

I was rather directing the question to the original poster.

Since his (or her) argument is that evolution necessitates a species to become self-sufficient, symbiosis (and yes, you're right, parasites are even more interesting) would, according to that argument, would be evidence against evolution. However, as you pointed out, evolution could very well favour symbiosis instead, much the same way that humans and pack animals live in groups in order to benefit each other.

[Guest]

Ah, yes, bring it to light. But be careful, if you look too closely it really might make some sense.

But you have to look and study a bit, not just jump on the word "Darwinism".

OK!

Still Teaching That Same Old Magical Number Thing

Nothing Plus Nobody Equals Everything In Time

And The Spontaneous Generation Of Life

As Old As The Sin Of Heathen Worship Of The Material World

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

Jeremiah 2:27

In The Mistaken Belief That What You See

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2 Peter 3:4

Is What You Get

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 3:36

Trust God Alone

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:11

[Guest HIS girl]

This is not science BUT...kids are great at teaching adults humility.

[ollkiller]

You think? can't you do better than that? It sounds suspiciously like many other evolutionists who use the same term we think this is what happened! that's probably the reason it's still a theory.

This has been said in the thread before but i'm going to emphasie it so hopefully we will not encounter this mistake again. Theory of Evolution does not mean it's just a theory. When something has amassed enough evidence it's called a theory. It should be called the facts of evolution.

Anyway, to the original question in the thread, it's a nice thought but it's not the way evolution works. Thankfully not anyway, i don't want to be fully functional when i'm born, i'd like a few years to relax and sit back before the stress of life takes hold.

[ollkiller]

You think? can't you do better than that? It sounds suspiciously like many other evolutionists who use the same term we think this is what happened! that's probably the reason it's still a theory.

This has been said in the thread before but i'm going to emphasie it so hopefully we will not encounter this mistake again. Theory of Evolution does not mean it's just a theory. When something has amassed enough evidence it's called a theory. It should be called the facts of evolution.

Anyway, to the original question in the thread, it's a nice thought but it's not the way evolution works. Thankfully not anyway, i don't want to be fully functional when i'm born, i'd like a few years to relax and sit back before the stress of life takes hold.

Are you suggesting the there is not enough evidence to allow evolution the status of a scientific theory??

No, quite the contrary, i meant that saying it's only a theory is false.

[ollkiller]

It should be called the facts of evolution.

would you agree with this statement then...

to have the "fact" of evolution you have to have also the "fact" of abiogenesis?

no

As for your question to jukia about design. I see it as one of two things. One, It's designed by a creator hence, hey we're alive good design. Two, many universes exist and ours is one of billions that exist so in one the constants we see needed for life exist in one (maybe more) of these universes. Who's right, you decide.