Intelligence and the Nature of the Designer
Copyright 2005 by Gus diZerega
Intelligent Design (ID) theory has been attacked as unscientific, offering a false alternative to evolution. I think this criticism is mistaken. ID is a theory with genuine scientific content.
Most scientists agree that to be considered a scientific hypothesis, a theory must be testable. If a theory can never be rebutted, it is not scientific. Advocates of ID claim life's extraordinary complexity, and its creatures' fine-tuning to their environment is evidence of deliberate intent. So, one way to evaluate the argument is to look for evidence of flawed design.
At first glance, the evidence looks pretty bad for ID theory. Consider the human back, the source of so much pain and suffering for so many people. Backbones apparently work well enough for four legged animals, but perform more poorly for us two-leggeds. One might imagine a competent designer would have done a better job.
Anyone noticing their cat or dog can drink and breathe at the same time might be forgiven a moment of envy, because we cannot. Cats and dogs never need the Heimlich maneuver. Sometimes we do. Again, this seems a case of flawed design.
The arcuate cruciate ligament in our knees is enables us to walk upright. Unfortunately, its positioning also makes it very susceptible to damage. Four-leggeds do not have this problem. Might better design have relieved us of it?
Every human eye has a blind spot, caused by a nerve that goes through the retina. No good audio-visual designer would design equipment with this feature. Why might an intelligent designer have done so?
The 'circle of willis' is a circle of arteries and veins surrounding the brain stem. As it regulates the blood that nourishes our brains, it is extremely important for our well-being. It is also very susceptible to failing under high blood pressure, leading to strokes. These veins are among the thinnest in the human body whereas a good designer would presumably have made them thicker and therefore less likely to burst.
Women give birth through the pelvis, a barrier that has caused the deaths of many women and infants. The design solution seems obvious: make pelvises wider. Alternatively, locate the birth canal elsewhere or enable women to lay eggs, or give them pouches like marsupials, so very tiny babies can grow larger safely.
Then, there is the male prostate gland, which is wrapped around the urethra. As men age it is prone to enlarging, making it difficult, painful, and sometimes impossible to pee. A good designer might have been expected to make it lie along side the urethra.
This list could be lengthened considerably. We have wisdom teeth when it seems wisdom would have eliminated the teeth. The appendix seems something largely unnecessary except occasionally to get inflamed, burst, and kill us.
These signs of bad design challenge ID theory, but they hardly rebut it. They only rebut the argument that the designer is omnipotent, omniscient, and good; characteristics the ID hypothesis need not posit. At least one of these traits has to be lacking, but a designer might still exist. The theory needs refining. Such a designer might instead be sadistic, incompetent, or lazy. Based on Genesis, we might choose laziness, or at least exhaustion, because that account claims we were made the sixth day and God needed to rest the seventh. Omnipotence can definitely be eliminated as a characteristic of the designer. But Genesis is not scientific, so let's stick with the physical evidence.
Like an archeologist exploring the ruins of an unknown people, using the styles and designs of their artifacts to deduce their interests and skills, we can tell a great deal from looking at what is well designed in us. One characteristic stands out prominently, giving us an important clue to the nature of a hypothetical designer: our sexuality. No other mammalian life form is so focused on sex, nor do any others have so many nerve endings so arranged that sexual activity is their source of greatest physical pleasure.
This evidence is powerful, but perhaps a bit disturbing. Our hypothetical Designer appears more interested in our sex lives than in our eating, breathing, drinking, walking, or other activities necessary for our existence.
If ID is true, we can now offer an educated hypothesis as to why we were designed: to produce pornography. Why else the unusual characteristics we have as humans, characteristics no other species needs to reproduce. A scientific theory of intelligent design offers powerful evidence that High Hefner may be closer to serving the will of his Creator than either Jesus or Buddha, who apparently practiced celibacy.
The most likely alternative to this hypothesis is evolution.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment