Theargument from poor design, also known as thedysteleological argument, is an argument against the assumption of theexistence of acreatorGod, based on the reasoning that anyomnipotent andomnibenevolentdeity or deities would not createorganisms with the perceived suboptimal designs that occur in nature.
The argument is structured as a basicmodus 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 areductio ad absurdum of the well-knownargument from design (which suggests thatliving things appear too well-designed to have originated by chance, and so an intelligent God or gods must have deliberately created them).
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/dysteleological". The nineteenth-century biologistErnst Haeckel applied the term "dysteleology" to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism.[1] In his 1868 bookNatürliche 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 theunsuitability of parts in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of thesuitability of parts".[1] In 2005, Donald Wise of theUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst popularised the term "incompetent design" (a play on "intelligent design"), to describe aspects of nature seen as flawed in design.[2]
Traditional Christian theological responses generally posit that God constructed a perfect universe but that humanity's misuse of itsfree will torebel against God has resulted in the corruption of divine good design.[3][4][5]
Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
This creator is God.
"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of thescientific theory ofevolution by means ofnatural 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 thehereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.
Infitness 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.
The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used byCharles Darwin;[6] modern proponents have includedStephen Jay Gould,Richard Dawkins, andNathan 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]
American scientistNathan H. Lents published his book on poor design in the human body and genome in 2018 titledHuman Errors. The book ignited a firestorm of criticism from the creationist community[7][8] but was well received by the scientific community and received unanimously favorable reviews[9] 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:
In the human female, afertilized egg can implant into thefallopian tube,cervix orovary rather than theuterus causing anectopic 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, thebirth canal passes through thepelvis. 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 asbreech birth are worsened by this position of the birth canal.
In the human male,testes develop initially within theabdomen. Later during gestation, they migrate through the abdominal wall into thescrotum. This causes two weak points in the abdominal wall wherehernias can later form. Prior to modern surgical techniques, complications from hernias, such as intestinal blockage andgangrene, usually resulted in death.[10]
The existence of thepharynx, a passage used for bothingestion andrespiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk ofchoking.
The breathing reflex is stimulated not directly by the absence ofoxygen but indirectly by the presence ofcarbon dioxide. This means that high concentrations of inert gases, such asnitrogen andhelium, 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 humanappendix is avestigial 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."[11]
Tinnitus, a phantom auditory sensation, is a maladaptation resulting from hearing loss most often caused by exposure to loud noise.[12] Tinnitus serves no practical purpose, reduces quality of life, may cause depression, and when severe can lead to suicide.[13]
Barely used nerves and muscles, such as theplantaris muscle of the foot,[14] 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.[15]
The common malformation of the human spinal column, leading toscoliosis,sciatica and congenital misalignment of the vertebrae. Thespinal 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 permanentparalysis.[16]
The route of therecurrent laryngeal nerve is such that it travels from the brain to the larynx by looping around theaortic arch. This same configuration holds true for many animals; in the case of thegiraffe, this results in about twenty feet of extra nerve.
Almost all animals and plants synthesize their ownvitamin C, but humans cannot because the gene for this enzyme is defective (Pseudogene ΨGULO).[17] Lack of vitamin C results inscurvy and eventually death. The gene is also non-functional in otherprimates and inguinea pigs, but is functional in most other animals.[18]
The maleurethra passes directly through theprostate, which can produce urinary difficulties if the prostate becomes swollen.[19]
Crowdedteeth and poorsinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of otherprimates although humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably withwisdom teeth, which can damage neighboring teeth or cause serious infections of the mouth.[20]
The structure ofhuman eyes (as well as those of all vertebrates). Theretina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on thesurface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in manyinvertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals ablind spot.[21] Having the optic nerve connected to the side of the retina that does not receive the light, as is the case incephalopods, would avoid these problems.[22]Lents and colleagues have proposed that thetapetum lucidum, the reflective surface behind vertebrate retinas, has evolved to overcome the limitations of the inverted retina,[23] as cephalopods have never evolved this structure.[24] However, an 'inverted' retina actually improves image quality throughmüller cells by reducing distortion.[25] The effects of the blind spots resulting from the inverted retina are cancelled bybinocular vision, as the blind spots in both eyes are oppositely angled. Additionally, ascephalopod eyes 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.[26]
The existence of unnecessary wings in flightless birds, e.g. ostriches.[27]
The enzymeRuBisCO has been described as a "notoriously inefficient" enzyme,[28] as it isinhibited 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 acompetitive enzyme inhibitor. However, RuBisCO remains the key enzyme incarbon fixation, and plants overcome its poor activity by having massive amounts of it inside their cells, making it the most abundant protein on Earth.[29]
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.
Variousvestigial body parts, like the femur and pelvis in whales (evolution indicates the ancestors of whales lived on land).
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 asupernormal stimulus - like amoth flying into a flame.
Plants are green and not black, aschlorophyll absorbs green light poorly, even though black plants would absorb more light energy.
Whales anddolphins breathe air, but live in the water, meaning they must swim to the surface frequently to breathe.
Intelligent design proponentWilliam Dembski questions the first premise of the argument, claiming that "intelligent design" does not need to be optimal.[30]
While theappendix 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.[31]
In response to the claim that uses have been found for "junk" DNA, proponents note that the fact that somenon-coding DNA has a purpose does not establish that all non-coding DNA has a purpose, and that the human genome does includepseudogenes 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.[32] The original study that suggested that theMakorin1-p1 served some purpose[33] has been disputed.[34] However, the original study is still frequently cited in newer studies and articles on pseudogenes previously thought to be nonfunctional.[35]
The argument from poor design is sometimes interpreted, by the argumenter or the listener, as anargument against the existence of God, or against characteristics commonly attributed to acreator deity, such asomnipotence,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...."[36]
The apparently suboptimal design of organisms has also been used by proponents oftheistic evolution to argue in favour of a creator deity who usesnatural selection as a mechanism of his creation.[37] Arguers from poor design regard counter-arguments as afalse 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 ofintelligent design tocherry pick which aspects of life constitute design, leading to theunfalsifiability 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 offree will that caused thefall of man (for example, inGenesis 3:16Yahweh says toEve "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy").[38]
^ed. Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister,The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology,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, orsin, also brought with it tragic cosmic consequences, for it ushered in natural evil as well."
^"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. <"Nervous System Guide by the National Science Teachers Association". Archived fromthe original on 2013-10-01. Retrieved2013-11-07.>
^Ohta Y, Nishikimi M (October 1999). "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis".Biochim. Biophys. Acta.1472 (1–2):408–11.doi:10.1016/S0304-4165(99)00123-3.PMID10572964.
^"Wisdom Teeth." American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). AAOMS, n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <"Wisdom Teeth | AAOMS.org". Archived fromthe original on 2013-11-10. Retrieved2013-11-07.>.
^Nave, R. "The Retina." of the Human Eye. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <"The Retina of the Human Eye".Archived from the original on 2015-05-04. Retrieved2015-06-03.>.
^"Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color." Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 November 2013. <"Squid Brains, Eyes, and Color". Archived fromthe original on 2013-11-11. Retrieved2013-11-07.>.
