Jump to content

Argument from poor design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lumpy joe108 (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 21 May 2008 (Got rid of an example of poor design that has been proved false.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 and 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

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]
An artist's representation of an ectopic pregnancy. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the 'Watchmaker analogy'.

The human reproductive system includes 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.
  • 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.[2]

Other arguments:

  • 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 having different functions 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 herbivores, is meant to aid in the bacterial digestion of cellulose. Since people use fire and heat to cook now the appendix has become useless. (It has 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. However some people have congenital absence of their appendix without any reports of impaired immune system function.)
  • The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.
  • The existence of apocrine sweat glands in the armpits. Unlike the sweat glands in all other parts of the body, the sweat glands in the armpits produce sweat that contains proteins and lipids. This causes yellowish stains on clothing, and also creates an odor when bacteria start to digest the proteins and lipids. No other sweat glands release proteins and lipids through sweat, and as a result, sweat from other parts of the body is virtually odorless.
  • 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.
  • The dystrophin gene is the largest ever found in nature — 2.4 million DNA base pairs; or 0.08 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.
  • 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 humans' (as well as all mammals') eyes. 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. (See Evolution of the eye). Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [3]
  • 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.
  • If rodents do not regularly wear down their incisors, which self-sharpen by chewing on wood, such upper and bottom teeth curl toward the rodents' skull and drill into their brain.

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 large number of designers, as in the old joke that "a camel is a horse designed by a committee".

Overview

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. Theistic Evolutionists 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 undirected natural processes rather than by design.

Criticism

The argument from poor design has received a fair share of objections, mostly from proponents of intelligent design. It is noted that the Panda's "thumb" works excellently for what it does — strip leaves. Plantaris muscle is important in proprioception, and in any case, disused muscles atrophy, which the plantaris does not.[4]

Critics also contend that so-called "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".

Responses to criticism

Many arguments against the argument from poor design have been addressed by its proponents. In the case of the Panda's thumb, the argument isn't that it works, the argument is that the design is poor - as a real digit would be functionally more effective than modified wrist bones.

In addition, the Plantaris muscle does atrophy. Its motor function is so minimal that its long tendon can readily be harvested for reconstruction elsewhere with little functional deficit. "Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the population." [1]

In response to the claim that uses have been found for "Junk" DNA. Proponents note that the fact that some non-coding DNA has a purpose does not establish that all non-coding DNA has a purpose. The original study that suggested that the Makorin1-p1 served some purpose (Hirotsune et al., 2003 [5]) has been shown to be entirely wrong (Grey et al., 2006 [6]). They also note that some sections of DNA can be randomized, cut, or added to with no apparent effect on the organism in question. [7]

In regards to the last argument, proponents note that 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.

The original argument rests on the concept of oxidative stress and ROS - the LHC and other components of the photosynthetic array can only absorb a certain amount of energy from sunlight. Absorbing more results in oxidative damage - a well-documented phenomenon in plants. However, this argument does nothing to invalidate the argument from poor design, as it merely shifts the focus of the question to why those specific components of the photosynthetic apparatus were designed to be unable to cope with commonly-encountered levels of solar energy. Natural selection as an explanation fares much better because it posits that photosynthesis originally evolved in an aquatic environment, then later adapted (but imperfectly) to the higher solar energy found in terrestrial environments.

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 judgement of humanity, an idea most major religions consider to be an enormous conceit that is diametrically opposed to their doctrines. We can know what God is like to a certain extent, but ultimately we cannot know everything about him because he is of necessity on a higher plane to us. 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 or the birth of babies through the pelvis. See Problem of Evil. But insufficient human knowledge may make things that actually are useful seem useless. For instance, it was once thought that tonsils were useless[citation needed], but in fact they have minor disease-preventing properties. Evidence of poor design certainly reduces the effectiveness of the argument from design.

The apparently sub-optimal design of organisms has also been used to argue in favour of a god who uses natural selection as a mechanism of his creation.[2]

Arguers from poor design regard all these counter-arguments as a false dilemma (God designed it, or it's flawed), leading to the unfalsifiability of intelligent design — if it's good design, God did it, if it's bad design, it's a result of the Fall (Genesis 3:16 has God saying to Eve "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy"). Arguers against poor design argue in turn: if it's poor design, then God would not have done it, so natural selection must have, but wonderful design shows how wonderful natural selection can be.

Books

  • Unintelligent Design (ISBN 1-59102-084-0 – December, 2003) is a book by Mark Perakh addressing Intelligent design and several other variations of creationism, which are alternate theories to evolution.
  • Williams, Robyn (1 Feb 2007). Unintelligent Design: Why God Isn't as Smart as She Thinks She Is. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-74114-923-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link) – Robyn Williams uses numerous examples from the natural and scientific world, including sinus blockages, hernias, appendix flare-ups and piles, argue against fundamentalist religion, creationism and intelligent design.

References

  1. ^ Selim, Jocelyn (2004). "Useless Body Parts". Discover. 25 (6). Retrieved 2007-02-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Simon & Schuster), 2006. p 191. ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-4274-2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_poor_design&oldid=213830333"