I presume that carrots have evolved specifically to be eaten, as a method for spreading seed. In a sense, they have the inverse of a will to live.
Precisely [as long as we’re willing to employ a little bit of teleological anthropomorphism for the sake of wit].
It should be noted Darwin hated the term ‘evolution’ as he never believed and had no proof to show one creature was overall better than another, just better at a particular niche. He preferred the term ‘specialization through natural selection’, but that doesn’t quite roll off the tongue and the majority of the public has no time for nuance.
Yes, Cecil is God, in response to your question…
If that is what you read out of the passage, then you did not read it the same way I do. Loving your fellow creatures is the meaning of life.
I would kind of disagree with that, assuming “proof” could be softened somewhat to “compelling evidence”, but it does depend of the descriptive definition of “god”.
Traditionally, “god” is depicted as being infinite and having characteristics related to its infinitude. These characteristics tend to be difficult to resolve in logical terms.
[ul]
[li]God is omnipresent: in what we currently call “spacetime” that makes god extratemporal, meaning its existence exceeds the bounds of the timeline, so it is not only Aquinas’ first cause but also the last effect, a circularity that is not impossible but also not very easy for us to deal with[/li][li]God is omniscient: this effectively makes everything deterministic, and since it knows what will happen, it is hard to understand why it would ever take any action[/li][li]God is omnipotent: this is a pretty troublesome from a logical standpoint; in a sense, omnipotence is the same thing as powerlessness, because in order to exercise power, some other force must be overcome – god would have to be constantly battling with itself since all the power belongs to it[/li][/ul]
But I think the most important logical failure is the assertion that god is perfect. Beyond perfection, there is nothing, in a way perfection is death (completion). Hence, the only motivation a god could have would be to become imperfect (not entirely unreasonable), in which case, having instigated creation, it will remain imperfect until everything ends and it once again achieves perfection. This of course is complicated by the fact that god is extratemporal, so it would have to exist in a a sort of gradient continuum of flux between perfect and imperfect (endless death and birth in every Planck instant).
Perhaps there are meaningful solutions to these koans, but is pursuing them even worthwhile? The putative god is infinite while we are nominally finite, which presents an all but insurmountable barrier between us and it. If the description of god were accurate, it would simply have no relevance to us at all, whether it exists or not. Anyone who claims otherwise is being fanciful, delusional or deceitful.
The god/religion premise was probably a valuable tool for uniting and coördinating a community or tribe. Today, it has outlived its usefulness. Scientific discovery shows signs of unending progress: we will never reach the last answer beyond which there are no more questions, and this is a good thing because questions are interesting and they keep us moving forward.
So, the believer can look at the world and see the amazing hand of god, while the unbeliever can be awed by the great underlying nothingness. The void itself is absolutely as breathtakingly awesome as the bearded man on Kolob, or whatever you will, and uncertainty can be just as satisfying as knowing. We should be able to just accept our differences and get on.
Carrots are the roots of a plant that flowers the following year. The root is a way to store energy from the first season to make an even bigger splash the next. It has 100% not evolved to be eaten, and our big tasty carrots are the result of artificial selection anyway.
Of course, if you replace carrots with any of thousands of species of wild growing berries the argument is sound.
Young Earth Creationaists? No not really. I know quite a few who are, and the scriptural book “Doctrine and Covenants” explicitly supports YEC. But the majority of Mormons (at least Mormons I’ve chatted with) ignore the actual words of the scripture and view the six days of creation as six “creative periods” of unknow duration. In the super-secret-but-not-really-secret-just-sacred temple ceremony, Elohim gives Jehovah and Michael a task, they perform the task, give a status report back to Elohim, and “we will call our labors the first [second, third, …] day.” Thus the creation may have taken billions of years, divided into periods called “days”. I think most of my LDS friends and family believe in astronomy, geology, and evolution, guided by the creators Jehovah and Michael under the supervision of Elohim.
See, sjs8710? We just can’t quit the weasel words. “Vanishingly unlikely” still leaves room to adjust our positions when we have more data. 
When did weasels evolve language?
There is no such thing as artificial selection. Certain carrots developed a trait (big tasty roots) that resulted in a radical shift in their reproductive strategy: now they enlist the aid of another organism in order to reproduce, much the same way that flowering plants enlist the aid of bees. The fact that humans are that other organism doesn’t change the basic dynamic; carrots, and all other domesticated crops, are using us for their own genetic ends.
And yeah, dropzone is mostly right about the weasel words ;).
A surprisingly long time ago. It was a random mutation but, because they were too stupid to figure out how to use it, it did not affect their survival one way or the other and kept getting passed down.
I lured a lost ferret close enough to catch it by kissing the back of my hand. Apparently I speak weasel and demonstrated why it’s for the best that they don’t.
It’s what separates us from the animals!
[/homer]
Not carrots, but fruit. Fruit in fact evolved the tasty surroundings of their seeds in order to be eaten by animals and spread. Contrast this with many other plants, which have protection for their seeds, chiles for example. Cite, Harold McGee’s book “On Food and Cooking,” chapter 7.
I’m sure wonderful things happened to you. But what about the not so wonderful things? What about babies born only to die early, or those killed in natural disasters? Perhaps you selectively remember the good things?
Scientists don’t prove things. We don’t ask you prove that there is a god, just as much evidence as my ancestors supposedly got during the Exodus would do fine. As for disproving god, first define god. Some gods you can’t say much about, others are self-contradictory. It would help if holy books are correct, but they are all riddled with the same kind of errors you’d expect from being written by uninspired humans.
As for knowledge being incomplete, we’ve just started. Science started less than 500 years ago, in that time we’ve observed to the ends of the universe and down below the atomic level. We’ve gone to the moon and Mars and beyond the solar system. We commonly do things that would be totally miraculous to those living just a few hundred years ago. Pretty damn good if you ask me. Contrast this to the lack of progress in the 1500 years where religion limited what could be explored.
Except the weasel.
Excellent elaboration, thank you.
Two questions:
-
Does the idea that Jewish monotheism derives from Zoroastrian theology reflect the current scientific consensus?
-
Has the idea that Jewish monotheism derives from Egyptian theology been proven wrong?
(If you get tired of typing, feel free to recommend a few good books, and I’ll be glad to do my own reading. ;))
ETA: I, uh… I should probably just start a new thread about this, right? Isn’t that how it works?
Who thought it derived from the Egyptians?
I take it you are alluding Ekhnaton’s “heresy”.
You do know that little bout didn’t last long and it did not end very well. Besides, it took place way too early, in the 14th century BC.
I had Jan Assmann in mind – a German Egyptologist who has written books such as Moses the Egyptian and The Price of Monotheism. He argues that Jewish monotheism does indeed have Egyptian roots. Is he way off base?
If you believe the whole Moses story was true, in the sense that that was the time the hebrews came to Canaan from Egypt and became monotheistic, then one looking at that period and place for signs of monotheism would appear logical.
The Egyptians did indeed stumble on it, in so far that Aton was made supreme God and the only god that should be worshipped.
The conclusion that the hebrew slaves somehow took this new religion with them in their exodus also seems a logical next step.
The evidence points to there being no exodus at all, in the first place.
Right up to the sixth century BC the archeological picture is one of polytheism.
Around the time the bible is written down, the area is under Persian rule. Who we know to be dualists.
So what would be more likely?
That the Hebrews somehow kept a short lived Egyptian ‘heresy’ alive, that was vigorously eradicated afterwards? Kept it alive for some 800 years, from a period that was some 200 years before the Moses story is supposed to have taken place anyway.
Or
that when the Israeli exiles started to write the bible they were influenced by the religion of the people that liberated them from their exile and just happened to be the rulers of the lands they wanted to take ‘back’ from those who were in charge of Israel, during their exile.