Content deleted Content added
Line 47:
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 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. However, in addition to notions or efficiency and artistry, one may also consider the moral criteria that a benign God would not include design flaws that lead to pain or unneccesary death, such as the [[appendix]], [[coccyx]], our crowded teeth or a proclivity for [[cancer]].
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 un[[falsifiability]] of [[Intelligent Design]] – 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. This is somewhat inaccurate though, as evolutionary biologists assert that all 'design' is due to evolution.
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.
| |||