Vet P.O.V. Happy Birthday Darwin! Evolution and God in the pet world
Share your home with some intelligently designed indoor fauna? Yeah, me too.
If you’re anything like me, you’ll understand when I explain how their presence constantly gives rise to thoughts of ancient dogs on the range and slinking cats in prehistoric prowl mode. While my feline ferals may be most reminiscent of their animal antecedents, I can even picture my Frenchies’ forbearers snuffling, rat-like, on the plains and lapping water, creek-side.
Yet for all my scientific leanings, I can’t manage to conjure up romantic thoughts of our early human brethren. It’s an irrational sort of lapse born arguably out of dedication to our Homo sapien history, from misplaced human pride and/or the influence of another extreme...over-romanticizing animals at the expense of our selfish genes.
***
On this 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, we toast to no one man, really. This celebration is more a moment to contemplate the revolutionary change in how we humans came to understand the natural world as a result of the theories he and his colleagues advanced...with Darwin as the inevitable target of accolades and attacks, alike.
Given our own modern reluctance to find the romance in our monkey cousinry, it’s not shocking that Darwin waited fifteen years to publish his findings. After all, we’ve evolved another 150 years since then and many of us have still to reconcile his science with our religious beliefs. What must it have been like for a British man of nineteenth century religiosity to wrap his head around another Galilean blow to our worldview?
150 years is a blip in the rhythm of time, we now understand. Yet some may observe an irony in how little humans have changed since then, particularly with respect to religious intransigence when it comes to Darwin’s message. Others may even advance our human lack of progress as a refutation of Darwin’s assertions. And the rest of us on the sidelines watch as each side digs in and hurls invectives at one another.
***
In the spirit of Darwin’s birthday, I’ll offer a semi-conciliatory framework by which to contemplate the concept of evolution, one not-so-uniquely veterinarian and only obliquely religious:
I’ll ask you to consider yourself the “intelligent designer” of a breed of dog. You may envision an animal with any sort of canine look and function you prefer, with one huge caveat: It must be blessed with extraordinary longevity, tremendous aptitude for positive socialization, orthopedic soundness, cardiovascular perfection, respiratory clarity, integumentary integrity, etc... In short, this will be the healthiest, soundest breed of dogs in the known world.
You envision the ideal outcome, yet as you progress through phase after phase of pups and their progeny, you begin to recognize one thing...your goal, elusive though it may have been at the outset, becomes increasingly more so as new health issues arise, veterinary medicine advances and your dogs display new behavior patterns that affect their survival. Your goal is loftier now, perfection elusive.
Yet in 50 years you’ve allowed for an exciting, intelligently-designed “evolution” of a new breed of brilliant animals. It’ll never be perfect...as you are not perfect, as your environment is not perfect, as nothing we know is perfect.
***
Of course, we utilize the scientific underpinnings of Darwin’s Origin of Species when we breed dogs or horses, fruit flies or bacterial colonies. We successfully manipulate molecules using the theory of natural selection to create life-saving drugs and novel therapies. Thanks to Darwin’s ideas, we live better...and so do our wild animal-evoking pets.
For my part, I accept Darwinism and all its fruits. I don’t have to rely on an impressive degree of faith to reconcile my religion with the science I’ve learned and the technology I employ. While I don’t disparage those who do, I do admit to a less-than-tolerant brand of confusion.
Sure, some may consider my view of God as a hands-off architect either simplistic and self-serving or revisionistic, faithless and ultimately unsatisfying. But what can I say? Can I help it if I see intelligent design behind every sly maneuver and graceful leap of my pets? No. No more than I can help knowing that the Darwin-accepting God I believe in has been revealed to me as a serious animal lover...and a genius breeder of dogs.
With that in mind, is it any wonder Darwin loved his terriers so?
February 15th, 2009
| < | February 2009 | > | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
Daily Vet
Recommended
- Dogster.com
- Petfinder.com
- Bark-n-Blog
- Dr. K's MySpace Page
- PetConnection
- Border Wars
- Nathan Winograd
- Underdogged
- K-9 Down
- K9 Diabetes
- Tripawds
- FelineDiabetes.com
- PetMD
Careerists
Did you always want to be a vet or vet technician? Thinking about it? Working on it? Need some Help?
- VetInfo.com
- AVMA
- Miami Vet Specialist
- Penn Vet School
- DVM.com
- VIN
- Vet News Network
- Vet Practice News
- Vetstoria
- Vet Manager Central
- Veterinary Team Jobs
- Veterinary Recruiting
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Mohandas Gandhi
Add Comment43 Comments
For the love o' Dog, Dr. Patty, PLEASE don't call it Intelligent Design! That's the name the anti-evolutionists have come up with to rationalize THEIR position that natural selection could NOT account for the wonderful and complex range of biological beings on the planet, especially man -- only a creator could have done so, deliberately and by design. I understood your intent though, or at least I think I did, and I appreciate it.
There are a large number of laypeople who doubt evolution because of their faith, and because their spiritual leaders urge them to. Fine. But as a matter of science, it irritates me no end when the media presents the two cases as if there were anything near equality between them. Evolution is accepted in the scientific community as proven. Intelligent Design is propaganda. There is no actual controversy in the scientific community on the issue, but if you read the papers or watch TV you would think there was, because they are given virtually equal time. It's a disgrace and disservice to the public, and inaccurate.
Susan R February 15th, 2009 02:30:35 PM
Intelligent design is an oxymoron of the highest order. If humans were designed intelligently why are there so many system failures? Why is reproduction of such intelligent design fraught with disasters every minute? Intelligent design only exists when certain craftspeople, with years of practice, and often lots of technological assistance, build an inanimate object. That object may be purely useful, or strictly ornamental, or a combination of both, but it can not reproduce itself (examples: Faberge/Lalique/Bugatti). Animate creatures reproducing don't start out perfect and they will evolve and degenerate precisely because they are living systems. Trying to say that humans are so special that we can cause evolution through selective breeding of other species, but that it didn't happen to us, is just plain wrong.
KateH February 15th, 2009 02:44:41 PM
I knew that using the term, "intelligent design" would raise hackles. I however, have become a proponent of this moniker--sans its evangelical overtones. For some reason, I'm drawn to the terminology, despite my profound skepticism of the way it's currenty [ab]used.
Agreed..."intelligent design" may be oxymoronic if you expect perfection. I, however, view imperfection as the mark of creation for its continual progressiveness. If you can accept imperfection as the hallmark of humanity (of life, really) and a rallying cry for free will and self-determination, then the Holy Spirit, Buddha, Almighty, Higher Power, or whatever-you-call-it is right on the money with its "intelligent design."
Sure, I wish others would stop appropriating my favorite term for evolution, but, hey, it's not the words' fault.
Dr. Patty Khuly February 15th, 2009 05:58:24 PM
It can't be explained. "It's" something you experience.
So don't ask me to further explain that.
(Obligatory LOL)
Evet February 15th, 2009 07:12:44 PM
I am a Christian and I believe in both, evolution and intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it. I am sure I am not the only one either. Why do people insist (assume) you are either on one side or the other? I am sure this makes me an outsider with pretty much everyone though. Fortunatly I can live with that. :-)
Marie February 15th, 2009 09:50:43 PM
"Intelligent Design" is the term invented by the anti-science fundamentalists who insist you CAN'T believe in both God and evolution--that anything other than God making the whole world and all its flora and fauna in one sweep of the hand, is both intolerable heresy, and stupid.
Those of us who are Christians, who believe God made the world, AND believe in evolution (because we look at the evidence, and believe that God does not lie to us)--to the Intelligent Design folks, we're worse than outright atheists who believe in evolution instead of Divine Creation.
Lis February 16th, 2009 08:07:18 AM
Marie- though I'm an atheist and don't subscribe to the idea of creationism/intelligent design/etc., I've never understood why so many seem to feel that evolution and ID are necessarily mutually exclusive. It seems to me that things have become more polarized on that front in recent years, but it may just be that in the past, (being younger and rather apathetic, politically speaking), I failed to see it. For whatever it's worth, I have a number of relatives who share your POV.. so you're not completely alone. ;)
Ramen Connoisseur February 16th, 2009 08:09:20 AM
I am a Christian. I believe the world was created. I believe sin entered the world, and because of that things are no longer perfect.
I also believe in evolution - to some extent. Things do change, but a fish swimming in the ocean isn't going to evolve to have lungs and feet and walk on the land. What is it going to do with partially formed lungs? any mutations are usually weeded out by preditors. I just don't see it happening with out some interferance, like man making fruit flies in a lab.
Connie February 16th, 2009 09:17:34 AM
the purrng of a cat makes me belive in god the taste od strawbrries and cream amkes me belive in god evolution makes ne belive in god i never understood wht both cant exist cannot god create evoluton?
jim February 16th, 2009 09:52:32 AM
I'm with Dr. K, not letting them co-opt one of my favorite terms: Intelligent Design. (It reminds me of how the Anti-Federalists became the Federalists when they were anything but.) Having long since acknowledged that I'm not omnipotent nor in direct and clear communication with my higher power, I have no problem with the co-existence of a higher power AND Intelligent Design co-existing. (I don't need to understand the internet to know it exists and works but, from what the tech guys tell me, there may well be aspects of a higher power as well as design going on there too :) I just think it's all magic (which is merely what science has yet to explain).
There are days when I suspect we humans could do a better job with our own Intelligent Designs, choosing better mates for the survival of our own species but, oh well... (Go ahead, flame away. I'll be in bed finishing my recovery from food poisoning. :)
PJBoosinger February 16th, 2009 12:06:43 PM
I heard a really interesting scientist on the radio, Brian Green, a proponent of "string theory." Asked whether or not humans would solve the puzzle of the universe and life itself, he basically said No, because much of that truth is probably beyond our capacity to understand. He explained it by using his dog as an example. He said something like: My dog is a very intelligent animal. He knows many things. But he has no clue about the theory of relativity, and he can't discuss physics with me. Although he is intelligent, it is beyond the reaches of his mind. Why would it not also be true, then, that some things are just BEYOND what we can figure out, puzzle, imagine? There are things we will never know about the universe, whether or not there is something like God and what the nature of that is, many facts about the origin of life and the universe. We haven't hit the wall in terms of the limits of our knowledge, but our own brains are finite, not of limitless capacity . . . there are probably things beyond knowing.
It gives me peace to put the questions of death and the origins of life (which includes the question of whether or not some creative force exists and what its nature is) in that pile of "things beyond knowing" and just focus on what I can know.
The people you have to watch out for are the ones who are SURE they know the RIGHT answer to it all.
Stefani February 16th, 2009 12:30:47 PM
Connie, mutations are not always disadvantageous, in fact many mutations give individuals an advantage over other individuals of the same species. The individuals that do not possess these traits often are eliminated (usually by predators) before they have a chance to reproduce and those with the mutation survive long enough to pass on the trait to their offspring and so on. This is referred to survival of the fittest, which leads to the evolution of a species. Evolution is not a theory, it is scientific fact...... it really isn't debatable. To me, refusing to believe in evolution is like still believing that the world is flat.
jerseygirl February 16th, 2009 12:44:50 PM
FYI, I totally believe in evolution (as, I'm sure, does Brian Green). The question is more: Is it possible that there is something in addition to evolution? Or working with evolution? Or behind it? I used to adamently believe "no" but I've come to believe that to declare myself 100% certain of that is just another kind of assertion that I know something I can't possibly know.
Stefani February 16th, 2009 01:31:06 PM
One thing that might help people is if they stopped saying "I BELIEVE in evolution" - or not - because it's not a system of faith. Try saying "I UNDERSTAND the process of evolution and how it shapes life on this planet - or you don't understand it and want to go with something you claim no one is able to understand.
KateH February 16th, 2009 01:44:25 PM
KateH: I like that. Thank you.
Diane C. February 16th, 2009 06:34:56 PM
Stefani, I like your (and Green's)concepts of reality and putting some things into the "pile of the things beyond knowing and concentrating on the things I can know." I fully intend to plagarize this. It will come in handy.
Hobson February 16th, 2009 08:14:01 PM
As a veterinarian, I found it takes much more faith to believe in macroevolution than it does intelligent design. For example can you name one species that has definitely been proven to have evolved into another species? Sure there is microevolution via adaptation but to think that one speices has evolved into a seperate new species is an unproven theory fraught with many holes.
Chip February 16th, 2009 10:02:06 PM
Here's where I get "confused." Macroevolution? As in Lamarkism? Or macroevolution as a result of microevolution over time? I don't find it hard to understand how fins evolved into flippers and flippers into feet. What's hard from my limited human brain's standpoint is is contemplating the billions of years these sequentially minuscule changes required. Some things are just beyond knowing...but this bit is not. We have overwhelming evidence to the fact.
How much evidence is enough? Do we actually have to visualize a virus mutating to know it has done so? Do we actually have to be present at the moment of species divergence to know it's happened? We have plenty of evidence of both these processes occurring right here, right now, to support scientific findings of "macroevolution" from millions and billions of years back. I don't see the holes. But I'm willing to listen.
Dr. Patty Khuly February 17th, 2009 07:53:56 AM
Dr. K, My son is fond of telling me that one of my worst faults is thinking with logic, rather than emotions (like most humans). He may be right to some extent. He points to the lack of evidence of EACH stage in the evolutionary line. He sees it like a chain of custody where, if there's a gap, it's invalid and fails for lack of "proof" I call this the emotional excuse exit and, if the same standard is applied to evaluating Biblical design, it too fails.
While I don't need to be present to observe to believe something actually happened, many sciences dismiss anything observed by others (outside their "club") as anecdotal and I've even seen refusals to test it to maintain that dismissal. All too many alleged scientists don't like to have their underlying "beliefs" tested or challenged either. :) I think it is very disconcerting to many that so very much does not meet strict proof standards; that most of life lies in the gray where one must have a solid foundation from which to logically extrapolate. If one lacks that, it's unsettling and I think the majority do lack it. In fact, we have a history and tradition of actually teaching in the lack of objective thinking. Add to that the fact we live in a world of sound bites so, if it can't be neatly explained in 30 seconds, many turn to something that can be. Doing otherwise is work, tiring, and disconcerting and most of us are inherently lazy.
10% of high school grads get through college; 10% of those go to grad school. Means less than 1% of the population have been exposed to the advanced concepts you're talking about. (There are some who understand it without high school or college but they're the rare exceptions and don't up that percentage which is probably overstated anyway.) AND, even the best thinkers have use of what teeny tiny percentage of the brain?
How to ask that those who can't see their own history of 10 years objectively to extrapolate billions of years of earth history? It always seemed quite a bit to expect of most IMO.
PJBoosinger February 17th, 2009 12:22:59 PM
Speciation has in fact been demonstrated--even replicated, in plants.
The "gaps" in the evolutionary process---yeah, sure, and every "missing link" that we find just creates two more "gaps" from the viewpoint of people determined to reject evolution.
The separation of dogs from wolves is recent; the genetic evidence is clear and the differences are still slight, even though having huge behavioral consequences.
Cats from the North African Wild Cat--even more recent, with still fewer actual differences.
Yes, lots of people do lack the education to understand the evidence for evolution. That's unfortunate.
But as for scientists being lazy and not wanting their orthodoxies challenged---evidence which supports currently existing theories does nothing for working scientists. Evidence which challenges or overturns currently existing theories, OTOH, generates plentiful new opportunities for research, publication, and jobs. No scientist ever got famous proving everyone else was right. So challenging existing orthodoxies is good--but only if you have a logical argument, a testable hypothesis, and some evidence. For instance, in another field of science, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is intended to test the existence of a particle called the Higgs-Boson. Finding the Higgs-Boson will confirm currently existing theories of physics.
Nearly all working physicists are hoping they won't find the Higgs-Boson. Because NOT finding it opens so many opportunities for them.
Lis February 18th, 2009 06:41:56 AM
Lis: But many of those that continue to see evolution as an unproved theory are very well educated. Chip, for example. My ex-boyfriend the Harvard-trained PhD architect, too. These are not anomalies. Hence, my confusion.
Dr. Patty Khuly February 18th, 2009 11:52:38 AM
Ditto. I sincerely want a better answer than "lazy" but, for those who are well educated and still dispute the theory, it's the best I can come up with. :)
PJBoosinger February 19th, 2009 01:20:36 AM
I think scientifically educated people not using natural selection as an explanation for species diversity and change are anomalies--in that they would be a very very small minority of people actively engaged in seriously needing/using an explanation for species diversity and change. Now if what you are an architect then you are not actively using the theory and choosing a less efficient one is not great issue and can just be a matter of style and taste--indeed one might suggest that architecture often makes such a choice (c.f. engineering).
emily February 20th, 2009 10:13:10 AM
شات
amal_ May 22nd, 2009 04:46:44 AM
قلبي
bent aboha May 22nd, 2009 12:49:57 PM
http://rmooosh.net/games/g3559.html
rmooosh June 4th, 2009 09:51:03 PM
I love darwin too :)
<a href="http://www.scommesse-sportive.tv/unibet.html">Unibet</a>
Unibet June 11th, 2009 08:24:24 AM
'http://www.h22h.com
'http://www.h22h.com July 15th, 2009 03:06:29 PM
IWC watches
IWC watches November 13th, 2009 08:38:27 AM
Longines watches
Longines watches November 13th, 2009 08:42:33 AM
omega watch for sale
omega watch for sale November 13th, 2009 08:43:26 AM
fake Tiffany Cuff
fake Tiffany Cuff November 13th, 2009 08:44:19 AM
Tiffany Accessories replica
Tiffany Accessories replica November 13th, 2009 08:45:07 AM
Tiffany Cuff replica
Tiffany Cuff replica November 13th, 2009 08:46:03 AM
croum watch for sale
croum watch for sale November 16th, 2009 08:02:32 PM
DeWitt watch for sale
DeWitt watch for sale November 16th, 2009 08:03:09 PM
Rolex Masterpiece watches
Rolex Masterpiece watches November 18th, 2009 12:45:26 AM
<a href="omega'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Omega/">omega watches</a><br><a href="oris'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Oris/">oris watches</a><br><a href="Panerai'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Panerai/">Panerai watches</a><br><a href="Patek'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Patek-Philippe/">Patek Philippe watches</a><br><a href="Piaget'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Piaget/">Piaget watches</a><br><a href="Rado'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rado/">Rado watches</a><br><a href="Tag'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Tag-Heuer/">Tag Heuer watches</a><br><a href="Tudor'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Tudor/">Tudor watches</a><br><a href="U-boat'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/U-boat/">U-boat watches</a><br><a href="Vacheron'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Vacheron-Constantin/">Vacheron Constantin watches</a><br><a href="Rolex'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rolex/">Rolex watches</a><br><a href="Rolex'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rolex/Air%20King/">Rolex Air-King watches</a><br><a href="Rolex'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rolex/Datejust%20II/">Rolex Datejust II watches</a><br><a href="Rolex'>http://www.iwcwatches.us/Rolex/DateJust/">Rolex Datejust watches</a><br>
Vacheron-Constantin November 23rd, 2009 10:05:45 AM
cheap Christian Louboutin Evening Shoes
vdiscount YSL Platform
cheap Yves Saint Laurent Boots November 24th, 2009 12:10:55 AM
“Marriage bridal gown world pictures pictures of wanted to plan a happy surprise, a number of wedding photography studio is the purpose of holding more money ‘Kengren’, they set a ‘trap’ let you keep track of.” Wedding photos has just finished a small selection mother told the journalists, was originally a good original price 7999 yuan Zhao Shuren said that the wedding package, less than 2,000 yuan only to 5999 yuan.
bridal November 24th, 2009 01:00:03 AM
cheap Christian Louboutin Pump
Christian Louboutin Boot on sale
cheap Christian Louboutin Boot November 25th, 2009 10:20:44 AM
discount Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Wedge
Christian Louboutin Wedges on sale
gfdaf November 26th, 2009 01:13:55 PM
Hello everyone. My home is not a place, it is people. Help me! I find sites on the topic: Low cost health insurance plans. I found only this - ppo health insurance plan. Health insurance, by 2007, that had rejected to 45 policy. But on a product by hospital model it may especially be german, health insurance. With best wishes :-(, Rosalba from East.
Rosalba February 21st, 2010 02:48:44 AM
Add Commment