Sunday, July 29, 2007

Food Disproves Theory of Evolution!

Sunday's -- serious thought for the week.
Here's my thinking. Get your rotten tomatoes ready.
We eat and drink to grow and to sustain our body's health. You're thinking, "Yes, gotcha so far." But, we don't eat just for sustenance, otherwise Braums triple-thick-shake might not be around for long, nor would Dunkin Donuts, because, we also eat for the enjoyment. We like to eat what tastes good, and we eat (and drink) for the enjoyment of being in the company of others. Who wants to eat alone all of the time?
How does this enjoyment fit into a closed-system of evolution? The complex integration of taste, smell and touch, that makes a crusty piece of toasted, french bread so enjoyable . . . evolved? Hmmm. Why? The impersonal forces "deduced" that enjoyment would encourage sustenance? Wow and amazing.
Also, why so many different kinds of tastes? Like sweet and sour. If a full stomach is the final enjoyment of a meal, why not an automatic cut-off switch so one doesn't overeat? That would be healthier, wouldn't it? So, why did enjoyment evolve as the way to get us to eat? Why not something less prone to abuse? It makes evolution without a personal (and benevolent) Deity somewhere in the creation equation seem implausible to me.
Philosophers refer to the "problem of evil" in relation to a Good God. How about the "problem of pleasure" in an only material universe? The reality of the immaterial. That's the real proposition modern man must either accept or reject.
Your turn, let me have it..

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Too true. The problem of pleasure--sounds like something C.S. Lewis would have liked.