|
In biology, what can be termed 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" in nature is evidence in favor of the theory of evolution, especially by means of natural selection. It is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. By "poor design," they mean features that are perceived by many as being less efficiently or less neatly implemented than they might otherwise be, and often are, in other, similar organisms. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, irreversible nature of the evolutionary process; that they arise from features that were evolved for certain uses, and then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that their present, apparently non-optimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.
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 do not appear 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.)
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. Further, it creates a straw-man, because creationist scriptures do not assert that God made life perfect, but only that he made it good, so that alleged instances of "imperfect design" are more a reflection of how we think things should have been designed than anything else. Third, it is a bit incongruous to argue that life is imperfectly designed, when we remain incapable of designing anything remotely as impressive as the allegedly "imperfect" orchid. Finally, it is even more incongruous to claim that things we can't design with all our intelligence and technology came about by chance alone, ala biological evolution.
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," after all: for example, it is argued that a true thumb would be extravagant for the Panda's mode of living; bilateral symmetry would not improve the camouflage of flatfish on the ocean floor; the arrangement of the eye's photoreceptors improves blood flow, and protects them; "junk" DNA may actually serve a purpose; 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. 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...."
Another 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.
References
|
