paul del signore May 7th, 2008

I should preface this post by defining a couple of terms, and where I stand in my beliefs. First off, I do consider myself an ID (Intelligent Design) proponent, and largely because I believe that God designed/designs his creation. However, I am not a creationist in a strict sense (7 days and a young earth). I am also open to the possibility that God uses evolution in his design building.
Regarding most of the evolution/creation debates I’ve heard, I don’t believe the terms are defined appropriately, but that’s another post for another day.
Why I am not a strict creationist?
Here is a strong argument that convinced me against the strict creationist position, and I still have not found a good response to this. Let’s consider the spider….
The vast majority of spiders follow the same basic killing and feeding procedure. The spider’s primary weapon is its chelicerae, a pair of jointed jaws in front of the mouth. Each jaw has two major parts: the basal segment, the bulk of the jaw, and the sharp fang housed inside of it. Normally, the fang is retracted inside the basal segment. When the spider catches its prey, it swings the fangs out into the animal’s body. The fangs work something like hypodermic needles. They have a small hole in the tip and a hollow duct inside. The duct leads to the venom gland, either inside the basal segment or farther back in the cephalothorax. When the spider pierces its prey with the fang, it squeezes out the venom, injecting the animal with enough neurotoxin to paralyze or kill. This makes it safe for the spider to feed on its prey, without the risk of a struggle.
Now, the spider’s body is designed to create neurotoxin, it’s system is designed to create intricate web structures to trap it’s prey. There is nothing about the makeup of the spider that would suggest otherwise.
Did the spider exist in the pre-fall garden?
There are only two possible explanations to this, and both oppose the strict creationist viewpoint:
1. The spider was designed as a predator before the fall, therefore animal death was a part of God’s original design. Strict creationists tend to deny any pre-fall death.
2. The spider evolved from a completely different biological structure; an evolution that would entail cross-species at the least. Also, this would suggest that the effects of the fall acted intelligently as to design a killing machine. Again, something a strict creationist would deny.
no offense to the strict creationists, I love you guys just the same. I am not sure myself, which of the two explanations makes the most sense, but I don’t think that strict creationism best addresses this dilemma.