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:
- An omnipotent and omniscient God would create organisms that have optimal design.
- Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
- 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:
- the existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and 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 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 pointless existence of the appendix in humans, 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 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.
- 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. [1]
It can be argued that any designer of life was inept or sadistic.
Overview
"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 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
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.
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 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.
See Also
References
- Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). The Panda's Thumb. ISBN 0-393-30023-4
- Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. ISBN 0-393-30448-5
- Selim, Jocelyn (2004). Discover. Useless Body Parts
- Leonard, P. (1993). "Too much light," New Scientist, 139.
- Witt, Jonathan. "The Gods Must Be Tidy!", Touchstone, July/August 2004.
- Gurney, Peter W.G. (1999). "Is our 'inverted' retina really 'bad design'?" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 13(1):37–44.
- Woodmorappe, J. (1999). "Panda thumbs its nose at the dysteleological arguments of the atheist Stephen Jay Gould" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 13(1):45–48.
- Woodmorappe, J. (1999). "Why Weren't Plants Created 100% Efficient at Photosynthesis? (OR: Why Aren't Plants Black?)"
- Sarfati, Jonathan (2001). "Rats! A toothless argument for evolution" Creation 24(1):45.
- Woodmorappe, J. (2003). "Pseudogene function: more evidence" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal/TJ 17(2):15?18.
- Sarfati, Jonathan with Mike Matthews: Argument: ‘Bad design’ is evidence of leftovers from evolution (from Refuting Evolution 2, ch. 7).