Argument from poor design

Encyclopedia : A : AR : ARG : Argument from poor design

---

The argument from poor design or dysteleological argument is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God (in the sense of a God that directly created all species of life). It is based on the following premise:

1. An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscience or omnibenevolent.

The argument is structured as a basic Modus tollens.

The argument is often used as a counter argument to the argument from design, and it is criticized by those who use that argument. If the argument from poor design is found to be acceptable, the argument from design is flawed as a consequence. The goal of the argument is to point out that the "creation" contains many defects, therefore intelligence wouldn't make a practical theory for the origin of our existence.

Additionally, the term Incompetent design has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design. The name stems from the acronym I.D. and is used to counter-balance arguments for intelligent design by a creator that are used by creationists.

Examples of poor design

Examples of "poor design" cited include:

• The urinary tract in the human male, especially the unnecessary passage of the urethra through the prostate gland. As the prostate almost always grows with age, it eventually compresses the urethra and often makes urination difficult or even impossible.
• Barely used nerves and muscles (e.g. Plantaris muscle) that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations.
• Intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly used for different purposes in other flowers.
• The use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.
• The pointless existence of the appendix in humans, also the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis. The appendix, which is highly developed in wild animals that eat raw meat, is meant to aid in the digestion of raw meat without getting sick. Since people use fire and heat to cook now the appendix has become useless.
• The striking non-symmetric structures and features of bony flatfish, such as flounder and halibut.
• The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.
• The route of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around the aortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals, in the case of the giraffe this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
• Portions of DNA — termed "junk" DNA — that do not appear to serve any purpose.
• The prevalence of congenital diseases and genetic disorders such as Huntington's Disease, and the inability for DNA to self-repair, leading to poor genetic performance, hereditable malformation and eventual death.
• The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to scoliosis, sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae (vertebral subluxation)
• Photosynthetic plants that reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength. A more optimal system of photosynthesis would use the entire solar spectrum, thus resulting in black plants.
• The existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
• The seemingly "backward-facing" arrangement of photoreceptors (and the related blind spots) within the retinas of many organisms, including all mammals.
• The structure of the human eye. The retina is "inside out" in that nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as in invertebrate species. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [link]
• Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth.
• The harshness, cruelty and suffering that is inherent in the wild in general, such as the incredibly difficult and arduous life of Emperor Penguins as depicted in the documentary March of the Penguins.

According to the argument from poor design, any designer of life on Earth would have to be inept, sadistic, or both.

Overview

"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

In terms of a fitness landscape, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Evolutionary creationists generally reject the argument from design, but do not necessarily reject the existence of God.

The argument from poor design is a counter-argument against the argument from design in which it is asserted that certain biological phenomena are too complex or too efficient to have come about by chance rather than by design.

Criticism

• A response to the argument that some may find viable is that the argument is a non sequitur, because it is comparable to arguing that the poor design of the Ford Pinto means that the Pinto was not designed.
• *However, this is ignoring the fact that the original argument was based on the premise of an omnipotent and omniscient being, not a mere human (or group of these): human error undeniably exists, but for a perfect being to make mistakes is obviously contrary to its definition and thus impossible.
• *The argument does not conclude that such things are not designed. It notes that, if designed, they are designed extremely poorly. Which contradicts the assumption of a deity which wouldn't make suboptimal design choices.

• A second criticism is that the argument from poor design creates a straw man because the Bible does not assert that God made life optimal, but only that He made it good, so that instances of "suboptimal design" are more a reflection of how we think things should have been designed than anything else. As such, the argument is essentially "pseudo-theological" in that it assumes how God should behave and notes that He didn't behave that way without addressing the possibility that God intentionally behaved differently than how some humans think He should have.
• * The Bible does state that humans were created to His image and likeness (Gen 1:26) thus making imperfections either impossible or part of Him.
• * The argument isn't specifically addressed toward the Biblical God or any God. It is addressed towards an omnipotent and omniscient creator God, who would create an optimal design. If this is not the creator God a given faith, this argument does not apply to that faith. It would be valid but unsound.

• Thirdly, it assumes that any putative designer (or designers) must necessarily be "omnipotent" or "divine" in the traditional sense. A putative designer (or designers) may possess sufficient superhuman intelligence without being "omnipotent" or "divine", and the resulting productions of such are good enough for their intended purposes. ("The extraterrestrial superbeings concept.")
• * However some of the poor design cited is so wrong and easy to fix that any semi-intelligent creator should not have made the mistake. Such as bridging the gap between the brain and larynx with a nerve which loops around the heart, or making the ganglion cells in the human eye closer to the light source than the photoreceptive cells. Inability to 'draw a stright line' is deemed to be Incompetent design.
• * The assumption of a omnipotent designer is not a valid criticism because the argument itself stated this as an assumption. If the assumption is rejected the argument is unsound, even if valid. However, simply making and stating assumptions does not fault an argument, even if the assumption is wrong.

• Other creationist critics maintain that these are perhaps results of genetic degeneration since creation, have unknown advantages, or are simply part of an unfathomable plan of a higher being^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}.
• * The concept of genetic degeneration itself would be the product of poor design.
• * Even working in reverse from a perfect design it would not be possible to recreate some instances of poor design. For example, the overcrowding of teeth in the human jaw is not properly explained by the reduction and degredation of perfection.

• Others question whether these are truly instances of "poor design"^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}. However a number of these better solutions exist in other species and do function properly. These serve as counterexamples to the claims of impossibility.
• * A true thumb would be extravagant for the Panda's mode of living and that the "thumb" works excellently for what it does—strip leaves.
• ** True thumbs work perfectly fine for humans.
• * Bilateral symmetry would not improve the camouflage of flatfish on the ocean floor.
• ** Nobody claimed bilateral symmetry would improve camouflage.
• ** Bilateral symmetry works very well for most animals.
• * If the nerves in human eyes were behind the photoreceptors as per the allegedly superior design, then there would be no room for the choroid to supply blood to regenerate the photoreceptors and remove excess heat, and that the eye is limited by diffraction not the retina.^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}
• ** Invertebrate eyes exist in such a way that the ganglion cells are behind the photoreceptive cells.
• ** The idea that there isn't room, blood supply, or that heat would be an issue are extremely spurious. Ganglion cells are small, the blood supply needed would be less, and heat isn't an issue with nerves.
• * "Junk" DNA may actually serve a purpose, and increasingly there have been many uses found for it, such as the regulatory function of the Makorin1-p1 "pseudogene".
• ** The fact that some non-coding DNA has a purpose does not establish that all non-coding DNA has a purpose. Some sections of DNA can be randomized, cut, or added to with no apparent effect on the organism in question. [link]
• * Greater energy efficiency in plants would result in damaging chemical reactions.^{[[Citing sources citation needed]]}
• ** Nobody has studied the effects of increased efficiency in plants in such a way to make this determination possible. The origin of this comment is suggested to be a creationist's hindquarters.
• ** Some plants have more and less efficient photosynthesis reactions, such as the C3, C4 and CAM photosynthesis reactions. No such "damaging chemical reactions" occur in the more effective processes.

As an argument regarding God

The argument from poor design is sometimes interpreted, by the argumenter or the listener, as an argument against the existence of God, or against characteristics commonly attributed to God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, or personality. In a weaker form, it is used as an argument for the incompetence of God. The existence of "poor design" (as well as the perceived prodigious "wastefulness" of the evolutionary process) would seem to imply a "poor" designer, or a "blind" designer, or no designer at all. In Gould's words, "If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes. Orchids are not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged...." This does however ignore the fact that the orchid functions fine and that any other "jury rigged" organism does too.

A counter-argument that has been made against this application of the argument — and that can be used against the argument from poor design itself — points out that the argument from poor design assumes that efficiency and neatness are the only criteria upon which the quality of biological design must be judged. The counter-argument maintains that, in addition to (or instead of) being thought of as an engineer, God is perhaps better thought of as an artist (possessing the ultimate artistic license). Moreover, this application of the argument presupposes the accountability of God to the judgment of humanity, an idea most major religions consider to be an enormous conceit that is diametrically opposed to their doctrines. However, doctrinal distaste should not rule out the moral issue that a benign God would not include design flaws that lead to pain or unnecessary death, such as the appendix, coccyx, our crowded teeth or a proclivity for cancer.

Another counter-argument is that the cited examples of "poorly designed" features are similar to hereditary traits that are commonly perceived as physical imperfections, e.g., birthmarks, baldness, predisposition to diseases, etc., that have been known throughout history, and have generally not been considered to call God's existence or characteristics into question. It could also be argued that these are hints intended by God to permit mankind to discover the mechanism of evolution.

Argumenters from poor design regard all these counter-arguments as cop-outs leading to unfalsifiability of Intelligent Design — if it's good design, God did it, if it's bad design, it's a result of the Fall, so every conceivable evidence will fit.

Alternative Religious Views

Some religions, such as Mormonism, believe that mortal life is really only meant as a test or exam of individuals. Those who score well on the exam have a better afterlife. Under this view, life and human beings don't need to be perfect. Mortal handling of pain and suffering caused by biological defects are all part of the alleged test.

See also

• Intelligent Design

External links

• [A short interview with prof. Don Wise at Really Magazine (2006)]

References

• [God for the Third Millennium]
• Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). . ISBN 0-393-30023-4
• Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. ISBN 0-393-30448-5
• Selim, Jocelyn (2004). Discover. [Useless Body Parts]
• Leonard, P. (1993). "Too much light," New Scientist, 139.
• Witt, Jonathan. ["The Gods Must Be Tidy!"], Touchstone, July/August 2004.
• Gurney, Peter W.G. (1999). ["Is our 'inverted' retina really 'bad design'?"] Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 13(1):37–44.
• Woodmorappe, J. (1999). ["Why Weren't Plants Created 100% Efficient at Photosynthesis? (OR: Why Aren't Plants Black?)"]
• Woodmorappe, J. (2003). ["Pseudogene function: more evidence"] Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 17(2):15?18.

 

---

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

?