Argument from poor design: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:39, 1 January 2006

Latest revision as of 02:28, 10 August 2025

(792 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Argument against assuming the existence of God}}

{{Atheism sidebar |arguments}}

The '''argument from poor design''', oralso known as the '''dysteleological argument''', is an [[argument against the existenceassumption of God]],the specifically[[Existence against theof God|existence of]] a [[Creator deity|creator]] [[God]], (inbased on the sensereasoning ofthat aany God[[omnipotence|omnipotent]] thatand directly created[[omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] all[[deity]] speciesor ofdeities life).would not Itcreate is[[organism]]s based onwith the followingperceived premise:suboptimal designs that occur in nature.

The argument is structured as a basic ''[[modus ponens]]'': if "creation" contains many defects, then design appears an implausible theory for the origin of earthly existence. Proponents most commonly use the argument in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'' of the well-known [[teleological argument|argument from design]] (which suggests that [[biology|living things]] appear too well-designed to have originated by chance, and so an intelligent God or gods must have deliberately created them).

# An [[omnipotence| omnipotent]] and [[omniscience| omniscient]] [[God]] would [[creation (theology)| create]] [[organism]]s that have optimal [[design]].

Although the phrase "argument from poor design" has seen little use, this type of argument has been advanced many times using words and phrases such as "poor design", "suboptimal design", "unintelligent design" or [[Dysteleology|"dysteleology/dysteleological"]]. The nineteenth-century biologist [[Ernst Haeckel]] applied the term "dysteleology" to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism.<ref name="haeckel">{{cite book |first= Ernst |last= Haeckel |author-link= Ernst Haeckel |year= 1892 |url= https://archive.org/details/historycreation01schmgoog |title= The History of Creation |publisher= D. Appleton |___location= Appleton, New York |page= [https://archive.org/details/historycreation01schmgoog/page/n359 331]}}</ref> In his 1868 book ''Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte'' (''The History of Creation''), Haeckel devoted most of a chapter to the argument, ending with the proposition (perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek) of "a theory of the ''unsuitability of parts'' in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the ''suitability of parts''".<ref name="haeckel"/> In 2005, Donald Wise of the [[University of Massachusetts Amherst]] popularised the term "incompetent design" (a play on "[[intelligent design]]"), to describe aspects of nature seen as flawed in design.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Wise |first=Donald |date=2005-07-22 |title="Intelligent" Design versus Evolution |journal=Science |publisher=[[American Association for the Advancement of Science|AAAS]] |volume=309 |issue=5734 |pages=556–557 |doi=10.1126/science.309.5734.556c |pmid=16040688|s2cid=5241402 }}</ref>

Traditional Christian theological responses generally posit that God constructed a perfect universe but that humanity's misuse of its [[free will]] to [[Fall of man|rebel against God]]<!--[?:], and the consequent damage from hostile spiritual forces,--> has resulted in the corruption of divine good design.<ref>Harry Hahne, [https://books.google.com/books?id=K-Ls4CUEWFAC&dq=Creation+fallen+due+to+sin&pg=PA211 ''The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8, Volume 34'']</ref><ref>Gregory A. Boyd, [https://books.google.com/books?id=Hj791_BeAF0C&dq=Creation+fallen+boyd&pg=PA206 ''God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict'']

</ref><ref>

ed. Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister, ''The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=KJQyhzY4PucC&dq=augustine+privation+of+good+fallen+creation&pg=PA160 pages 160-161] - "Fundamental to the position is Augustine's view that the universe God created is good; everything in the universe is good and has good purpose [...]. [...] How did evil arise? It came about, he maintains, through free will. [...] some of God's free creatures turned their will from God, the supreme Good, to lesser goods. [...] It happened first with the angels and then [...] with humans. This is how moral evil entered the universe and this moral fall, or ''sin'', also brought with it tragic cosmic consequences, for it ushered in natural evil as well."

</ref>

== Overview ==

[[File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png|thumb|right|Natural selection is expected to push fitness to a peak, but that peak often is not the highest.]]

The argument runs that:

# An [[Omnipotence|omnipotent]], [[Omniscience|omniscient]], [[Omnibenevolence|omnibenevolent]] creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.

# Organisms have features that are suboptimal.

# Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

The argumentIt is oftensometimes used as a counter[[reductio argumentad toabsurdum]] of the well-known [[Teleological argument|argument from design]], andwhich itruns isas criticised by those who use that argument.follows:

# Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.

== Examples of poor design ==

# Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.

Examples of "poor design" cited include:

# This creator is God.

* the existence of the [[pharynx]], a passage used for both [[ingestion]] and [[respiration (physiology)|respiration]], with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of [[choking]].

* 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 [[orchid]]s, apparently constructed from components commonly used for different purposes in other flowers.

* the use by [[panda]]s of their enlarged [[radial sesamoid bone]]s in a manner similar to how other creatures use [[thumb]]s.

* the pointless existence of the [[appendix]] in [[human]]s, and the corresponding potentially fatal condition of [[appendicitis]]

* the striking non-symmetric structures and features of bony flatfish, such as [[flounder]] and [[halibut]].

* the seemingly "backward-facing" arrangement of [[photoreceptor]]s (and the related [[blind spot (anatomy)|blind spot]]s) within the [[retina]]s of many organisms, including all [[mammal]]s.

* portions of DNA &mdash; termed [[junk DNA|"junk" DNA]] &mdash; that are claimed not to serve any purpose.

* [[photosynthesis|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 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. [http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml]

"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 [[heredity|hereditary]] mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

It can be argued that any designer of life was inept or sadistic.

In [[fitness landscape]] terms, 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.

== Overview ==

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by [[Charles Darwin]];<ref>[[Charles Darwin|Darwin, Charles]]. ''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th ed., Ch. 14.</ref> modern proponents have included [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], and [[Nathan H. Lents]]. 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 still maintain belief in the existence of God.{{citation needed|date=January 2017}}

[[Image:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png|thumb|right|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 [[heredity| hereditary]] mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

== Examples ==

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.

<!-- [[Evolutionary flaw]] redirects here -->

===In humans===

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

====Fatal flaws====

{{more citations needed|date=May 2017}}

[[File:Ectopic.png|250px|thumb|right|[[Regnier de Graaf|Artist's]] representation of an [[ectopic pregnancy]]. Critics cite such common biological occurrences as contradictory to the '[[watchmaker analogy]]'.]]

American scientist [[Nathan H. Lents]] published his book on poor design in the human body and genome in 2018 titled ''Human Errors''. The book ignited a firestorm of criticism from the creationist community<ref>{{Cite web |title=Creation: Review of Human Errors by Nathan H Lents |url=https://creation.com/review-human-errors-nathan-lents}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Evolution News: articles about Human Errors |url=https://evolutionnews.org/?s=%22human+errors%22}}</ref> but was well received by the scientific community and received unanimously favorable reviews<ref>{{Cite web |title=Human Errors: The Human Evolution Blog |date=16 October 2017 |url=https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/book-human-errors/}}</ref> in the dozens of non-creationist media outlets that covered it.

Several defects in human anatomy can result in death, especially without modern medical care:

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.

* In the human female, a [[zygote|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 [[vagina|birth canal]] passes through the [[human pelvis|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 [[hernia]]s can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, such as intestinal blockage and [[gangrene]], usually resulted in death.<ref name="Jury">{{cite web |first=Chris |last=Colby |author2=Loren Petrich |year=1993 |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html |title=Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature |publisher=[[Talk.Origins]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811235247/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html |archive-date=2011-08-11 }}</ref>

* The existence of the [[pharynx]], a passage used for both [[ingestion]] and [[respiration (physiology)|respiration]], with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of [[choking]].

* The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence of [[oxygen]] but indirectly by the presence of [[carbon dioxide]]. This means that high concentrations of inert gases, such as [[nitrogen]] and [[helium]], can cause suffocation without any biological warning. Furthermore, at high altitudes, oxygen deprivation can occur in unadapted individuals who do not consciously increase their breathing rate.

* The human [[Appendix (anatomy)|appendix]] is a [[vestigial organ]] thought to serve no purpose. [[Appendicitis]], an infection of this organ, is a certain death without medical intervention. "During the past few years, however, several studies have suggested its immunological importance for the development and preservation of the intestinal immune system."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kooij|first1=I. A.|last2=Sahami|first2=S.|last3=Meijer|first3=S. L.|last4=Buskens|first4=C. J.|last5=Te Velde|first5=A. A.|date=October 2016|title=The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature|journal=Clinical and Experimental Immunology|volume=186|issue=1|pages=1–9|doi=10.1111/cei.12821|issn=1365-2249|pmc=5011360|pmid=27271818}}</ref>

* [[Tinnitus]], a phantom auditory sensation, is a maladaptation resulting from hearing loss most often caused by exposure to loud noise.<ref name="shore">{{cite journal |last=Shore |first=Susan |title=Maladaptive plasticity in tinnitus-triggers, mechanisms and treatment|journal=Nature Reviews. Neurology |date=2016 |volume=12 |issue=3 |pages=150–160 |doi=10.1038/nrneurol.2016.12 |pmid=26868680 |pmc=4895692 }}</ref> Tinnitus serves no practical purpose, reduces quality of life, may cause depression, and when severe can lead to suicide.<ref name="cheng">{{cite journal |last=Cheng |first=YF|title=Tinnitus and risk of attempted suicide: A one year follow-up study|journal=Journal of Affective Disorders |date=2023 |volume=322 |pages=141–145 |doi=10.1016/j.jad.2022.11.009 |pmid=36372122 |s2cid=253472609 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165032722012563|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

====Other Criticism flaws====

<!-- this needs to be written in a more NPOV style -->

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, though of course a key difference is that no one is claiming divine origins for the [[Ford Pinto]].

* Barely used nerves and muscles, such as the [[plantaris muscle]] of the foot,<ref name="selim">{{cite journal |last=Selim |first=Jocelyn |date=June 2004 |title=Useless Body Parts |journal=Discover |volume=25 |issue=6 |url=http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110817155923/http://discovermagazine.com/2004/jun/useless-body-parts |archive-date=2011-08-17 }}</ref> that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations. Another example is the muscles that move the ears, which some people can learn to control to a degree, but serve no purpose in any case.<ref>{{cite book |first=Ernst |last=Haeckel |author-link=Ernst Haeckel |year=1892 |url=https://archive.org/details/historycreation01schmgoog |title=The History of Creation |publisher=D. Appleton |___location=Appleton, New York |page=[https://archive.org/details/historycreation01schmgoog/page/n356 328]}}</ref>

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.

* The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading to [[scoliosis]], [[sciatica]] and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae. The [[spinal cord]] cannot ever properly heal if it is damaged, because neurons have become so specialized that they are no longer able to regrow once they reach their mature state. The spinal cord, if broken, will never repair itself and will result in permanent [[paralysis]].<ref>"Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association." Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association. National Science Teachers Association, n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <{{cite web |url=http://www.nsta.org/publications/interactive/nerves/health_and_disease/sc_injuries.html |title=Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association |access-date=2013-11-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131001090246/http://www.nsta.org/publications/interactive/nerves/health_and_disease/sc_injuries.html |archive-date=2013-10-01 }}></ref>

* 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.

Other [[creationism|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 &#8212; 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.

* Almost all animals and plants synthesize their own [[vitamin C]], but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective ([[L-gulonolactone oxidase|Pseudogene ΨGULO]]).<ref>{{cite journal |author=Nishikimi M, Yagi K |s2cid=27631027 |title=Molecular basis for the deficiency in humans of gulonolactone oxidase, a key enzyme for ascorbic acid biosynthesis |journal=Am. J. Clin. Nutr. |volume=54 |issue=6 Suppl |pages=1203S–1208S |date=December 1991 |pmid=1962571 |doi=10.1093/ajcn/54.6.1203s|doi-access=free }}</ref> Lack of vitamin C results in [[scurvy]] and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in other [[primate]]s and in [[guinea pig]]s, but is functional in most other animals.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ohta Y, Nishikimi M |title=Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis |journal=Biochim. Biophys. Acta |volume=1472 |issue=1–2 |pages=408–11 |date=October 1999 |pmid=10572964 |doi=10.1016/S0304-4165(99)00123-3}}</ref>

* The prevalence of [[congenital disease]]s and genetic disorders such as [[Huntington's disease]].

* The male [[urethra]] passes directly through the [[prostate]], which can produce urinary difficulties if the prostate becomes swollen.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gregory |first=T. Ryan |date=December 2009 |title=The Argument from Design: A Guided Tour of William Paley's Natural Theology (1802) |journal=Evolution: Education and Outreach |language=en |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=602–611 |doi=10.1007/s12052-009-0184-6 |s2cid=35806252 |issn=1936-6434|doi-access=free }}</ref>

* Crowded [[teeth]] and poor [[Paranasal sinus|sinus]] drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other [[primates]] although humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with [[wisdom teeth]], which can damage neighboring teeth or cause serious infections of the mouth.<ref>"Wisdom Teeth." American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). AAOMS, n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <{{cite web |url=http://www.aaoms.org/conditions-and-treatments/wisdom-teeth |title=Wisdom Teeth &#124; AAOMS.org |access-date=2013-11-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110234351/http://www.aaoms.org/conditions-and-treatments/wisdom-teeth/ |archive-date=2013-11-10 }}>.</ref>

* The structure of [[human eye]]s (as well as those of all vertebrates). 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 (vision)|blind spot]].<ref>Nave, R. "The Retina." of the Human Eye. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <{{cite web |url=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/retina.html |title=The Retina of the Human Eye |access-date=2015-06-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150504053926/http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/retina.html |archive-date=2015-05-04 }}>.</ref> Having the optic nerve connected to the side of the retina that does not receive the light, as is the case in [[cephalopods]], would avoid these problems.<ref>"Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color." Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <{{cite web |url=http://gilly.stanford.edu/neuroscience.html |title=Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color |access-date=2013-11-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131111005702/http://gilly.stanford.edu/neuroscience.html |archive-date=2013-11-11 }}>.</ref> [[Nathan H. Lents|Lents]] and colleagues have proposed that the [[tapetum lucidum]], the reflective surface behind vertebrate retinas, has evolved to overcome the limitations of the inverted retina,<ref>{{cite journal |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200003 |doi=10.1002/bies.202200003 |title=The glow of the night: The tapetum lucidum as a co‐adaptation for the inverted retina |date=2022 |last1=Vee |first1=Samantha |last2=Barclay |first2=Gerald |last3=Lents |first3=Nathan H. |journal=BioEssays |volume=44 |issue=10 |s2cid=251864970 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> as cephalopods have never evolved this structure.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/12/the-night-begins-to-shine-the-tapetum-lucidum-and-our-backward-retinas/ |title=The Night Begins to Shine: The Tapetum Lucidum and Our Backward Retinas &#124; Skeptical Inquirer |date=29 December 2022 }}</ref> However, an 'inverted' retina actually improves image quality through [[Müller glia|müller cells]] by reducing distortion.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Franze|first1=Kristian|last2=Grosche|first2=Jens|last3=Skatchkov|first3=Serguei N.|last4=Schinkinger|first4=Stefan|last5=Foja|first5=Christian|last6=Schild|first6=Detlev|last7=Uckermann|first7=Ortrud|last8=Travis|first8=Kort|last9=Reichenbach|first9=Andreas|last10=Guck|first10=Jochen|date=2007-05-15|title=Muller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|volume=104|issue=20|pages=8287–8292|doi=10.1073/pnas.0611180104|issn=0027-8424|pmc=1895942|pmid=17485670|doi-access=free}}</ref> The effects of the blind spots resulting from the inverted retina are cancelled by [[binocular vision]], as the blind spots in both eyes are oppositely angled. Additionally, as [[cephalopod eye]]s lack cone cells and might be able to judge color by bringing specific wavelengths to a focus on the retina, an inverted retina might interfere with this mechanism.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Sanders|first=Robert|date=2016-07-05|title=Weird pupils let octopuses see their colorful gardens|url=https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/07/05/weird-pupils-let-octopuses-see-their-colorful-gardens/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706161645/http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/07/05/weird-pupils-let-octopuses-see-their-colorful-gardens/ |archive-date=2016-07-06 |access-date=2021-01-12|website=Berkeley News|language=en-US}}</ref>

* Humans are attracted to [[junk food]]'s non-nutritious ingredients, and even wholly non-nutritious [[psychoactive drugs]], and can experience [[physical dependence|physiological adaptations]] to prefer them to nutrients.

===Other life===

==As an argument regarding God==

* In the [[Africa]]n [[locust]], [[nerve]] cells start in the abdomen but connect to the wing. This leads to unnecessary use of materials.<ref name="Jury" />

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...."

* Intricate reproductive devices in [[orchid]]s, apparently constructed from components commonly having different functions in other flowers.

* The use by [[panda]]s of their enlarged [[sesamoid bone#Other animals|radial sesamoid bones]] in a manner similar to how other creatures use [[thumb]]s.<ref name="Jury" />

* The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.<ref>{{cite book |first=Ernst |last=Haeckel |author-link=Ernst Haeckel |year=1892 |url=https://archive.org/details/historycreation01schmgoog |title=The History of Creation |publisher=D. Appleton |___location=Appleton, New York |page=[https://archive.org/details/historycreation01schmgoog/page/n354 326]}}</ref>

* The enzyme [[RuBisCO]] has been described as a "notoriously inefficient" enzyme,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Spreitzer RJ, Salvucci ME |s2cid=9387705 |title=Rubisco: structure, regulatory interactions, and possibilities for a better enzyme |journal=Annu Rev Plant Biol |volume=53 |pages=449–75 |year=2002 |pmid=12221984 |doi=10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135233}}</ref> as it is [[enzyme inhibitor|inhibited]] by oxygen, has a very slow turnover and is not saturated at current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The enzyme is inhibited as it is unable to distinguish between carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen, with oxygen acting as a [[competitive inhibition|competitive enzyme inhibitor]]. However, RuBisCO remains the key enzyme in [[carbon fixation]], and plants overcome its poor activity by having massive amounts of it inside their cells, making it the most abundant protein on Earth.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ellis RJ |title=Biochemistry: Tackling unintelligent design |journal=Nature |volume=463 |issue=7278 |pages=164–5 |date=January 2010 |pmid=20075906 |doi=10.1038/463164a|bibcode=2010Natur.463..164E |s2cid=205052478 }}</ref>

* Sturdy but heavy bones, suited for non-flight, occurring in animals like bats. Or, on the converse: unstable, light, hollow bones, suited for flight, occurring in birds like penguins and ostriches, which cannot fly.

* Various [[vestigial]] body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales (evolution indicates the ancestors of whales lived on land).

* ''[[Turritopsis dohrnii]]'' and species of the genus ''[[Hydra (genus)|Hydra]]'' have [[biological immortality]], but most animals do not.

* Many species have strong instincts to behave in response to a certain stimulus. Natural selection can leave animals behaving in detrimental ways when they encounter a [[supernormal stimulus]] - like a [[moth]] flying into a flame.

* Plants are green and not black, as [[chlorophyll]] absorbs green light poorly, even though black plants would absorb more light energy.

* [[Whale]]s and [[dolphin]]s breathe air, but live in the water, meaning they must swim to the surface frequently to breathe.

* [[Albatross]]es cannot take off or land properly.

==Counterarguments==

A counter-argument that has been made against this application of the argument&mdash;and that can be used against the argument from poor design itself&mdash;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 licence|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.

===Specific examples===

[[Intelligent design]] proponent [[William Dembski]] questions the first premise of the argument, claiming that "intelligent design" does not need to be optimal.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dembski |first=William |author-link=William Dembski |title=Intelligent design: the bridge between science & theology |publisher=InterVarsity Press |year=1999 |isbn=0-8308-2314-X |page=261}}</ref>

While the [[vermiform appendix|appendix]] has been previously credited with very little function, research has shown that it serves an important role in the fetus and young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development, which produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. In young adults, the appendix has some immune functions.<ref name=SA>{{cite web |first=Loren G. |last=Martin |date=October 21, 1999 |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t |title=What is the function of the human appendix? |publisher=[[Scientific American]] |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121009062840/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t |archive-date=October 9, 2012 }}</ref>

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.

===Responses to counterarguments===

Argumenters from poor design regard all these counter-arguments as cop-outs leading to un[[falsifiability]] of [[Intelligent Design]] &ndash; if it's good design, God did it, if it's bad design, it's a result of the [[Fall (religion)|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.

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, and that the human genome does include [[pseudogenes]] that are nonfunctional "junk", with others noting that some sections of DNA can be randomized, cut, or added to with no apparent effect on the organism in question.<ref>{{cite web |first=Mark |last=Isaak |year=2004 |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html |title=Claim CB130 |publisher=Talk.Origins |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060911070043/http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html |archive-date=2006-09-11 }}</ref> The original study that suggested that the ''Makorin1-p1'' served some purpose<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hirotsune | first1 = S | last2 = Yoshida | first2 = N | last3 = Chen | first3 = A | last4 = Garrett | first4 = L | last5 = Sugiyama | first5 = F | last6 = Takahashi | first6 = S | last7 = Yagami | first7 = K | last8 = Wynshaw-Boris | first8 = A | last9 = Yoshiki | first9 = A. | year = 2003 | title = An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene | journal = Nature | volume = 423 | issue = 6935 | pages = 91–6 | doi = 10.1038/nature01535 | pmid = 12721631 | display-authors = etal | bibcode = 2003Natur.423...91H | s2cid = 4360619 }}</ref> has been disputed.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gray | first1 = TA | last2 = Wilson | first2 = A | last3 = Fortin | first3 = PJ | last4 = Nicholls | first4 = RD | year = 2006 | title = The putatively functional Mkrn1-p1 pseudogene is neither expressed nor imprinted, nor does it regulate its source gene in trans | journal = Proc Natl Acad Sci USA | volume = 103 | issue = 32 | pages = 12039–12044 | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0602216103 | pmid = 16882727 | pmc = 1567693 | bibcode = 2006PNAS..10312039G | doi-access = free }}</ref> However, the original study is still frequently cited in newer studies and articles on pseudogenes previously thought to be nonfunctional.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=16337157008352528383|title=Google Scholar|website=scholar.google.com}}</ref>

==As an argument regarding God==

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 tapeworm 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.

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 a [[creator deity]], 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...."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda%27s-thumb.html |title=The Panda's Peculiar Thumb |work=NATURAL HISTORY |date=November 1978 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060928063454/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda's-thumb.html |archive-date=2006-09-28 }}</ref>

The apparently suboptimal design of organisms has also been used by proponents of [[theistic evolution]] to argue in favour of a creator deity who uses [[natural selection]] as a mechanism of his creation.<ref>[[Francis Collins|Collins, Francis S.]] ''The Language of God'' (New York: Simon & Schuster), 2006. p 191. {{ISBN|978-1-4165-4274-2}}</ref> Arguers from poor design regard counter-arguments as a [[false dilemma]], imposing that either a creator deity designed life on earth well or flaws in design indicate the life is not designed. This allows proponents of [[intelligent design]] to [[Cherry picking (fallacy)|cherry pick]] which aspects of life constitute design, leading to the [[unfalsifiability]] of the theory. Christian proponents of both intelligent design and creationism may claim that good design indicates the creative intelligence of their God, while poor design indicates corruption of the world as a result of [[Alvin Plantinga's free will defense|free will]] that caused the [[fall of man]] (for example, in [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] 3:16 [[Yahweh]] says to [[Eve]] "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy").<ref>{{cite web |url=https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/the-evolution-of-childbirth/ |title=The Evolution of Childbirth? |last=Mitchell |first=Dr. Elizabeth |date=15 November 2006 |website=Answers in Genesis |access-date=11 December 2020}}</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Intelligent Design]]

==See also==

*[[Incompetent design]]

* [[Atavism]]

* [[Vestigiality]]

* [[Maladaptation]]

* [[Human vestigiality]]

==References==

{{Reflist}}

* [[Stephen Jay Gould|Gould, Stephen Jay]] (1980). ''[[The Panda's Thumb]]''. ISBN 0-393-30023-4

* [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, Richard]] (1986). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]''. ISBN 0-393-30448-5

==Further reading==

* [[Jocelyn Selim|Selim, Jocelyn]] (2004). ''[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]]''. [https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/0765bb50d404455385256f0000680854?OpenDocument&Click= Useless Body Parts]

*Avise, John C. (2010), ''Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design'', Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-539343-0}}.

* Leonard, P. (1993). "Too much light," New Scientist, 139.

* [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, Richard]] (1986). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]''. {{ISBN|0-393-30448-5}}

* [[Stephen Jay Gould|Gould, Stephen Jay]] (1980). ''[[The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History]]''. {{ISBN|0-393-30023-4}}

* {{cite journal | last1 = Gurney | first1 = Peter W.G. | year = 1999 | title = Is our 'inverted' retina really 'bad design'? | journal = Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ | volume = 13 | issue = 1| pages = 37–44 }}

* Leonard, P. (1993). "[https://www.newscientist.com/letter/mg13918806-600-letters-too-much-light/ Too much light]," ''New Scientist'', 139.

* {{cite journal|last1=Martin|first1=B.|last2=Martin|first2=F.|year=2003|title=Neither intelligent nor designed|url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2003/11/neither-intelligent-nor-designed/|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|volume=27|page=6}}

*[[Mark Perakh|Perakh, Mark]] ''Unintelligent Design'' ({{ISBN|1-59102-084-0}} – December 2003)

*{{cite book |author=Williams, Robyn |author-link=Robyn Williams |title=Unintelligent Design: Why God Isn't as Smart as She Thinks She Is |publisher=Allen & Unwin |date=1 February 2007 |isbn=978-1-74114-923-4 }}

* Witt, Jonathan. [http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-06-025-f "The Gods Must Be Tidy!"], ''Touchstone'', July/August 2004.

* Woodmorappe, J. (1999). [https://www.rae.org/essay-links/perfect/ "Why Weren't Plants Created 100% Efficient at Photosynthesis? (OR: Why Aren't Plants Black?)"]

* Gurney, Peter W.G. (1999). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/retina.asp "Is our 'inverted' retina really 'bad design'?"] ''Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ'' 13(1):37&#8211;44.

* Woodmorappe, J. (19992003). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/panda.asp "PandaPseudogene thumbs its nose at the dysteleological arguments of the atheist Stephenfunction: Jaymore Gouldevidence"] ''Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ'' 1317(12):45&#8211;4815?18.

* Woodmorappe, J. (1999). [http://www.rae.org/perfect.html "Why Weren't Plants Created 100% Efficient at Photosynthesis? (OR: Why Aren't Plants Black?)"]

==External links==

* [[Jonathan Sarfati|Sarfati, Jonathan]] (2001). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/rats.asp "Rats! A toothless argument for evolution"] ''Creation'' 24(1):45.

* [https://web.archive.org/web/20061113164257/http://www.reallymagazine.com/interview.htm#DW A short interview with prof. Don Wise at ''Really Magazine'' (2006)]

* Woodmorappe, J. (2003). [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/pseudogene.asp "Pseudogene function: more evidence"] ''Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ'' 17(2):15?18.

*[https://web.archive.org/web/20101230224524/http://www.theshrubbery.com/udn/ Unintelligent Design Network] satirical site

* [[Jonathan Sarfati|Sarfati, Jonathan]] with Mike Matthews: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter7.asp Argument: ‘Bad design’ is evidence of leftovers from evolution] (from ''Refuting Evolution 2'', ch. 7).

{{philosophy of religion}}

{{Theology}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Argument From Poor Design}}

[[Category:Creationism]]

[[Category:Arguments against the existence of God|Poor design, argument from]]

[[Category:Evolution]]

[[Category:ReligiousCriticism philosophyof and doctrinecreationism]]

[[Category:Criticism of intelligent design]]

[[Category:Evolution and religion]]

[[Category:Creator deities]]