Astyanax Mexicanus and Illogical Design

[Fnord Fred]

I wrote this as a short piece in an attempt to convince literal creationist and "Intelligent Design" proponents that evolution is not only compatible with belief, but the only logical conclusion. If anybody can punch a whole in it, I'm betting you guys can. Lemme know what you think.

www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs-6.html

"In an experiment designed by nature, the species of fish known as Astyanax mexicanus, dwelling in caves deep underground off the coast of Mexico, cannot see. The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin. These vestigial eyes probably formed after hundreds or even thousands of years of living in total darkness. As for the experiment, a control is needed; and luckily for us, fish of the same species live right above, near the surface, where there is plenty of light, and these fish have fully functioning eyes. To test if the eyes of the blind mexicanus could function if given the right environment, scientists removed the lens from the eye of the surface-dwelling fish and implanted it into the eye of the blind fish. It was observed that within eight days an eye started to develop beneath the skin, and after two months the fish had developed a large functioning eye with a pupil, cornea, and iris. The fish were blind, but now they see. "

Why would God design by hand a fish like this? Dysfunctional eyes are a waste of food and energy. Are we to believe that an Omnipotent, Omnicognizant being is incapable of building a fish? Is God some sort of bumbling idiot?

Or, are we to believe that evolution is in the process of removing an unimportant organ from a species that lives in the dark and doesn't need eyes?

Which one are you going to believe - His word, or His works?

[echnaton]

Why would God design by hand a fish like this?

In general saying “Why would God do this” or “Would a such and such God do that” are not very useful. This type of question can only be answered by speculation and therefore invites speculation. This is exactly what you want to avoid in discussions with creationist. The experienced one’s can have a response for every possible scenario. Even if that answer is just because He did it that way.

Many people who are ignorant of a subject will often look to the person who can answer more questions as the better informed rather than the one who has the more objectively correct answers, so they tend to misjudge the “winner” of such discussions. Even if they are the participants. If you want to discuss biology, don’t ask questions that invite theological answers.

[Fnord Fred]

echnaton said:

Why would God design by hand a fish like this?

In general saying “Why would God do this” or “Would a such and such God do that” are not very useful. This type of question can only be answered by speculation and therefore invites speculation. This is exactly what you want to avoid in discussions with creationist. The experienced one’s can have a response for every possible scenario. Even if that answer is just because He did it that way.

Many people who are ignorant of a subject will often look to the person who can answer more questions as the better informed rather than the one who has the more objectively correct answers, so they tend to misjudge the “winner” of such discussions. Even if they are the participants. If you want to discuss biology, don’t ask questions that invite theological answers.

Mmmm, good point.

Should I change it to "He wouldn't do it like this?"

[jaydeehess]

How about:
"Logically, the creation of this fish as a separate creature makes no sense whatsoever, whereas the evolution of sucha fish from one that can indeed see is a logical progression."

It asks no theological question and begs the respondant to admit that God is illogical.

However, the answer to this would be that no one knows, or can know, the mind of God but that God is all knowing. We are simply as incapable of comprehending God's purposes as an ant is of ours.

[gwiz]

How about "If this is Design, it's none too Intelligent".

[Al Johnston]

The human body contains quite enough evidence of illogical "design" that illustrates a contingent history: the arrangement of blood vessels and sensory cells in the retina, and that nerve that goes from brain to nose via the chest, to name but a couple.

As a friend rather pithily put it, "What kind of Great Architect puts the playground between two open sewers?"

[Nowhere Man]

Just a couple of comments, probably not worth much.

Al's friend is right: God must have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a sewage ditch through a recreational area?

I'm bemused by the fish name. Astyanax (Chief/prince of the city) is the nickname given to Scamandrios, the infant son of Hector, the great hero of Troy. Had Paris not run off with Helen, the war wouldn't have happened and Scamandrios would have wound up king of Troy. Seeing as his grand-dad, Hector's father, was King Priam and all that. I wonder why that name was chosen for the fish genus?

Fred