By Richard Yen
One reason why people do not believe in a loving God is because this world seems so cruel.
If you have ever watched the National Geographic Channel on how the cheetah works so hard to chase down a gazelle only to have the carcass snatched away by lions or hyenas, there is only one message:
“Eat, run or be eaten.”
Well, wildebeests can only eat grass. They cannot fight lions. What is the meaning of life for them, except be eaten? And you say “God is fair”?
Contrary to conventional wisdom, evolutionists and creationists have some things in common. Both have to work with what is here in the real world, and both believe that man arrived at a later stage in this world. What differ are their explanations.
Darwin proposed "survival of the fittest" as his explanation. All data seemed to fit. Never mind about man's cruelty to man, or, what do religious people say about life in the jungle? How do you fit your idea of a loving God into this dog-eat-dog world?
First, we must understand the mass media need to compete for viewers. Showing how sharks attack seals will win higher ratings than lectures on the physiology of digestion. Both are about eating, but blood will get your attention. Therefore the message from TV is really a reflection of their philosophy and economic need. It will never answer real questions about God's love, or your existence.
Second, explanations are not the same as facts. Sure, wolves will eat old and sick elks. That is a fact. But the conventional explanation that removal of those unlucky ones will maintain survival of the fittest and thus, improve the genetic quality of elks, is simply propaganda.
Wolves eat old and sick elks for only one reason. Those happen to be the slowest ones. If the strongest elk suddenly trips, the wolves will eat it too. Wolves have no incentive to keep the fastest elks alive to produce faster and faster running elks. Neither do wolves have any understanding of elk genetics.
Sickness and old age do not change the genetics of an animal. Only Lamarck, Darwin's failed competitor, would believe that younger members of the community could produce better offspring. But we know now that older folks do not have weaker genes.
But still, religious people need to answer why God would allow meat-eaters to roam this earth.
So, let us suppose there are only herbivores on earth. Having no predators, grass-eaters will soon over-produce. And if the grass is gone, how is the number of grass-eaters to be regulated until there is a new equilibrium?
What people have overlooked is the importance of waste-disposal.
Regardless of whether there is enough grass, some animals will die (say from old age). Decomposition by bacteria is simply too slow.
It is now recognized that without the dung beetle, the African wilderness will be covered by elephant excrement. What is disgusting to you is appetizing for someone else. They do the dirty work so that others can live.
Animals only have the concept of food; they do not have the concept of cruelty. Most will eat live or dead meat. None of them bury their dead. What appears to be cruelty to you is perhaps the only way to control the ever-expanding bacterial populations.
So whether you are an ardent evolutionist or creationist, it is good to know that the biological world had reached some equilibrium before man appeared.
And one more thing: not all meat-eaters are winners. I am sure glad that dinosaurs are already extinct.
You wouldn’t want to be living among T. rex, would you?