Argument from poor design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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, omniscient 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.

Contents

[edit] Examples of poor design

Examples of "poor design" cited include:


  • In the African locust, nerve cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials. [1]
  • The inverted nature of the vertebrate retina. The nerve cells that connect the light-sensitive cells of the retina to the brain are located in front of these cells, partially blocking the incoming light. Because of this positioning, a blind spot is created where the optic nerve punctures the retina to reach these nerve cells. See Evolution of the eye, section "Other developments" for an explanation why the octopus' eye is better constructed than ours.
A baby implanted in the mother’s fallopian tube, which will have to be aborted to save the mother's life. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the 'Watchmaker Analogy'.
Enlarge
A baby implanted in the mother’s fallopian tube, which will have to be aborted to save the mother's life. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the 'Watchmaker Analogy'.

Poor design of the human reproductive system [2] include the following:

  • In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian tube, cervix or ovary rather than the uterus causing an ectopic pregnancy. The existence of a cavity between the ovary and the fallopian tube could indicate a flawed design in the female reproductive system. Prior to modern surgery, ectopic pregnancy invariably caused the deaths of both mother and baby. Even in modern times, in almost all cases, the pregnancy must be aborted to save the life of the mother.
  • In the human female, the birth canal passes through the pelvis. The prenatal skull will deform to a surprising extent. However, if the baby’s head is significantly larger than the pelvic opening, the baby cannot be born naturally. Prior to the development of modern surgery (caesarean section), such a complication would lead to the death of the mother, the baby or both. Other birthing complications such as breech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal. Birth would hypothetically be easier if the birth canal passed through the front of the abdomen. [3]
  • In the human male, testes develop initially within the abdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into the scrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall where hernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias including intestinal blockage, gangrene, etc., usually resulted in death.[4]

Other arguments:

  • In the human male, a portion of the urethra is surrounded by the prostate gland. If the prostate gland is enlarged for any reason, the urethra becomes impassable, making urination difficult and painful and in extreme cases impossible. Prior to modern surgical techniques, inability to urinate usually resulted in death. [5]
  • 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. (It also been proposed that the appendix is involved in development of the immune system within the first year after birth, but subsequently has no function.)
  • 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 dystrophin gene is the largest ever found in nature – 2.4 millions of DNA base pairs; or 0.1 percent of the human genome. Its only known function is to inhibit muscular dystrophy; and such a large gene is highly susceptible to harmful mutations.
  • 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 structure of the human (as well as all mammals) eye. The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [6]
  • 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.
  • Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own vitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO). Lack of vitamin C results in scurvy and eventually death. Defective vitamin synthesis pathways are a hallmark of "higher" animals – of which many are predators – because the prey accumulates vitamins that stems either from the eaten plants or are self-synthesized in the captured individual. Thus, higher animals are mostly unable to return to a purely "vegetarian" lifestyle; while conservation of such pathway genes is of no apparent cost to the animal.

Other critics argue that if these design failures are the deliberate products of an intelligent designer, then the designer must be either inept or sadistic. Or possibly there was a committee of designers, as in the old joke that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

[edit] Overview

Natural selection is expected to push fitness to a peak, but that peak often is not the highest.
Enlarge
Natural selection is expected to push fitness to a peak, but that peak often is not the highest.

"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.

[edit] Criticism

[edit] General criticisms

  • Counter point of statement 1, "An omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design", there is no evidence in any religious scripture of any of the monotheistic religions that god has to create anything in an optimal design, and thus no reason to assume that a god would act this way

[edit] Criticisms of specific examples

  • The Panda's "thumb" works excellently for what it does—strip leaves.
  • 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.[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 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. [7]
    • The original study which suggested that the Makorin1-p1 served some purpose (Hirotsune et al., 2003 [8]) has been found to be completely flawed (Grey et al., 2006 [9]). The gene is non-coding and serves no purpose in gene regulation.
  • Greater energy efficiency in plants would result in damaging chemical reactions.[citation needed]
    • Nobody has studied the effects of increased efficiency in plants in such a way to make this determination possible. 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.

[edit] 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...."

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.

Arguers from poor design regard all these counter-arguments as a false dilemma (God designed it, or it's flawed), 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.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/g/Argument_from_poor_design.html"
In other languages