Jump to content

Argument from poor design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vjam (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 21 December 2005 (→Criticism: typo). 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 and omniscient God would create organisms that have optimal design.
  2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
  3. Therefore, God did not create organisms.

The argument is often used as a counter argument to the argument from design, and it is criticised by those who use that argument.

Examples of poor design

Examples of "poor design" cited include:

  • 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 striking non-symmetric structures and features of bony flatfish, such as flounder and halibut.
  • the seemingly "backward-facing" arrangement of photoreceptors (and the related blind spots) within the retinas of many organisms, including all mammals.
  • portions of DNA—termed "junk" DNA—that are claimed not to serve any purpose.
  • plant photosynthesis, which does not use the green-light portion of the visible light spectrum, reflecting it back as green coloring. (It would be more efficient to use the entire light spectrum, thus reflecting no light, which would result in leaves having a black color.)

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 an species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.

The argument from poor design is a counter-argument against the argument from design in which it is asserted that the existence of what is characterized as "poor design".

It 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, irreversible nature of the evolutionary process. It should also be noted that evolutionary creationists generally reject the argument from design, but do not reject the existence of God.

Criticism

Some creationists respond that the argument is non sequitur, because it is comparable to arguing that the poor design of the Ford Pinto means that the Pinto was not designed.

Second, it 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 behaved differently than we thought He should.

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. Others question whether these are truly instances of "poor design,". For example, it is argued that 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; bilateral symmetry would not improve the camouflage of flatfish on the ocean floor; 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; "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"; greater energy efficiency in plants would result in damaging chemical reactions.

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.

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. Conversely, opponents would say that evolutionary biologists do exactly the same: if it's poor design, then God would not have done it that way, so evolution must have.

Setting up "poor design" as a proof against God can be considered a straw man. Basically and simply, "poor design" serves as a counter-argument to the argument of design. It is possible to be a theist and still argue that the glory of an eagle's flight or the orbit of the moon is not any better a proof of God than the primitive organs of a taleworm or the instability of the Earth's crust is a proof against Him. Thus, there are two versions of the "poor design" argument that must be considered separately.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argument_from_poor_design&oldid=32242331"