The footprints were so-named because many of the more superstitious townspeople believed that the footprints were the work of Satan, since they were allegedly made by a cloven hoof. There were many attendant rumors about sightings of a “devil-like figure” in the Devon area during the scare. Many townspeople armed themselves and attempted to track down the beast responsible, without success (Wikipedia).

Let’s get this straight: on February 8-9, 1855, English townspeople found peculiar tracks in the snow which continued for 100 miles. They popularly thought it to be the Devil. What they posited as the cause has something to say for intelligent design.

What Caused the Footprints?

You can probably see where this post is headed: they see prints, so they think there must be a printer. Yes, overall that’s my point. But you may object and point out that they posited a “superstitious” creature as an explanation. Ultimately, yes. But, initially can you not imagine the men of Devon arguing over whether the tracks could be that of a deer, or a field mouse, or a cow? Using what they know about tracks they would have narrowed down their options.

“Could it be a cow?”

“No, how would a cow get onto the roof?”

“What about a field mouse?

“I don’t think a little field mouse can walk for over 100 miles in one right.”

Secondly, even with positing the Devil as causing the footprints, they are still positing a being doing the tracks.

Theories Solving the Mystery

The Wikipedia article lists several proffered theories of explanation for the queer tracks:

1. Wood mice – proposed in March of that year
2. Kangaroo – proposed also in March of that year as having escaped from a private menagerie
3. Weather balloon
4. Bizarre meteorological phenomenon
5. Mass hysteria

If I say by way of argument for intelligent design, “See, the townspeople thought the tracks to be the work of a sentient being such as mice or a kangaroo,” I imagine you would object and rightly point out against intelligent design, “But the remaining explanations include non-sentient objects such as a balloon and a meteor.” Right, you are but these two latter explanations are just as superstitious has positing the Devil. A cloven-hoof balloon or meteor doesn’t square well with what we’ve observed about either of the objects.

So What that We Don’t Have an Explanation

Yeh, so what; but observe that the townspeople were immediately drawn to explanations of intelligent design: some sentient being made these tracks while going somewhere. Among the posited theories, unsurprisingly, time and random chance are not included. Picture the serious conversation wherein townspeople offered explanations and one man suggesting time and random chance.

“What about a kangaroo escaping from Mr. Smith’s private little zoo?”

“Possibly. We’ll have to ask him.”

“I think time and random chance could have produced these tracks.”

“Are you serious?”

When we observe “phenomena” such as tracks in the snow, our minds immediately begin thinking of beings that could have done such work; we don’t immediately despair and claim, “It happened randomly! There was the right mixture of natural elements and wha-bam, tracks appeared.” The townspeople are a case in point.

On another note, isn’t Citi bank one who’s on the verge of going the way of Fannie Mae? The paperless, tree initiative might be the least of their worries. Nonetheless, woo-hoo trees!

Hey Drew,

No, I don’t find you dogmatic. I am glad to hear you confident in your beliefs. It comes as a refreshing change when I’m so confused about what to believe. I find your replies fascinating but when you give one answer another one pops into my head. I hope you don’t think I bring up complications for the sake of it. I am trying to get things sorted in my head and you are truly helping. I envy people who have the certainty of God’s existence and your answers seem plausible in the most part and deserve further thought.
You say that creation shouts the existence of God. What about evolution and those old fossils that are being discovered every day? What about Darwin and all those eminent scientists who claim that life evolved? Were they all wrong? Do you believe that God created the world in six days as it says in Genesis? Evolution and “creation” can’t both be true, can they?

You say that Peter and the other disciples claimed that Jesus was “the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. I can understand they thought he was ” the Christ”, the “chosen one”. But what do you mean by “the Son of God”. Does God have children like humans do? Is this a silly question? I just want to know what being the “Son of God” means.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Jack

Creation and evolution is a huge undertaking, and from my limited understanding, I don’t want to inaccurately represent the whole belief system that comes with evolution, lest I be tackling a false notion. People devout their whole lives to these kind of things and they’re called scientists, and a scientist I am not nor claim to be. Nonetheless, let’s carry on. =)

For my pea-sized brain, I think it is helpful to distinguish between two types of evolution, one that is undeniable and one that is speculative and unprovable. The first type of evolution is microevolution, micro = small. This type of evolution is undeniable and verifiable (a requirement of science). What microevolution means is that small variations/changes occur within species, such as mutations and natural selection (the weak die). Examples of microevolution are legion. For example, Charles Darwin noticed differences in the beaks and feathers of some finches that lived from separated each other. Also, consider the many varieties of dogs, horses, cows, cats, etc. This is microevolution, changes within a species. A Dachshund is still a dog like a Yorkshire Terrier is a dog. I see no problem with microevolution. A problem arises though whenever you observe something undergoing microevolution (like a breed of dog) and then conclude that this is where humans came from. This was the problem of Charles Darwin. He noticed the small changes in beaks of birds and turtles and concluded that this is how life originated. This is called macroevolution because it says big changes occur across species. A lizard turns into a bird. An ape turns into a human. Macroevolution argues that if you just give something enough time it will evolve into something new and better. Macroevolution is what most people are referring to when they say “evolution.”

There are a couple things wrong with macroevolution that a sasquatch like me can point out. The main thing for me that I would like to point out is that even if macroevolution happens, where did the first things that evolved come from? There’s a funny story about God and a scientist–tell me you haven’t heard this one. A scientist challenges God to a contest to create a human. God consents and says that they’ll go about it just like back when God made Adam. The scientists says, “Sure, let’s go” and reaches down for some dirt to get to work. God stops him: “You gotta make your own dirt first.” This example is of course reducing evolution to a simpler form than it really is, but the purpose of examples like this is to point out one big idea, and that idea here hints at the idea of first cause. Something first had to cause there to be little tiny bacteria in order for that little bacterium to evolve. Christianity, and what’s known as Creationism, teaches that that first cause is God and that God spoke things into existence, they didn’t macro-ly evolve. Everything was made by an intelligent being, thus what’s known as Intelligent Design. There are tons of websites and books on Creationism and Intelligent Design that do the topic far more justice than I can.

In conclusion here, I do believe God created the world and everything in it according to how it’s described in Genesis. I find Naturalistic Darwinism (= evolution and that all things have a natural cause; i.e. atheism + evolution) incompatible with God, Christianity and the Bible; and therefore reject it. There are more scientific reasons for rejecting it (lack of evidence, unobservable, unreproducible), but those are beyond both my present scope and the scope of our emails; but do please research and read. =)

Now, meanwhile back at the ranch, Jesus being referred to as the “Son of God.” This is not a silly question. There are stupid questions and this isn’t one of them. [Haha.] God does not have children like humans do because God does not have a body like humans do and therefore does not have reproductive organs. “God is spirit” (John 4:24). God is referred to as “the Father” and Jesus is referred to as “the Son.” The term of “Son of God” is actually a Jewish term and predates Christianity. Before Christianity, the term just meant people that were obedient to God, or it sometimes referred to angels. It is not used to imply that God has offspring or physical children like your mom and dad had you. The title “Son of God” later came to be used mostly for Jesus. When applied to Jesus, the title speaks of his divinity, that he is the exact representation of God in human bodily form. Thus, sometimes Jesus is referred to as the “God-man” because he is both fully God and fully human. Understanding this really shows what all Peter meant in his declaration and what Jesus was claiming about himself.

Toodles,
Drew