fayfreethinkers.com

DOUG writes:
Good, accessible article.

See here.

In case you had any doubt, the last nail was just placed in the coffin of intelligent design (ID). And, in case you had any doubt, that last nail joins many others that have been in place for quite some time.

The latest attack appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and provides conclusive evidence that the design of the human genome is incredibly imperfect, or, in other words, very far from being intelligently structured. As John Avise, a University of California-Irvine biologist, noted in the paper, his focus "is on a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome."

The basic concept of intelligent design comes in two parts and is as simple as it is satisfying for those unwilling to think deeply about the natural world, science, or the nature of religion. Part one, stretching way back to the ancient Greeks, notes that nature is so perfectly integrated that it must have been designed just as we see it. Part two, largely attributed to Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe, says that while some aspects of nature might certainly have changed (evolved?) over time, others are so complex that they must always have existed in the form we find them in today. Indeed, he coined the term "irreducibly complex" to explain such structures. Change anything at all in these irreducibly complex structures and they fail to work.

Both parts of ID are spectacularly wrong.

Doug wrote:DOUG writes:
Good, accessible article.

....

The latest attack appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and provides conclusive evidence that the design of the human genome is incredibly imperfect, or, in other words, very far from being intelligently structured. As John Avise, a University of California-Irvine biologist, noted in the paper, his focus "is on a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome."

Bullshit. There's a reason that this "category" of argument against ID is neglected: It's impotent.

Well, okay... so all arguments used against dittohead IDiots are impotent because said IDiots can't be convinced that they're wrong, despite real evidence or valid reasoning. But this is not one of those cases. This is just a bad argument.

The newest thrust of ID is absolutely not that life is perfectly designed. The thrust is that life shows signs of definite design. Such an allegation does NOT entail definite design in all components -- that is, perfect design. In fact, many IDiots (like Behe) assert that evolution occurs but just doesn't explain all of the observations (as opposed to arguing that evolutionary theory doesn't explain anything or is wholly incorrect).

I don't even think it's a case where the IDiots are guilty of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Behe and his ilk can maintain that the flagellum is designed but that the insane plumbing of the male reproductive system is a result of undirected evolution, and they can do so without being internally inconsistent. Sure, it's cheap and backhanded, it's wishful thinking, and it's awfully convenient, but it's not self-contradictory.

HuffPo wrote:Both parts of ID are spectacularly wrong.

This is -- of course -- entirely true. But this argument does nothing to show the vacuity of the part that is actually being used by people to push ID as "scientific."

HuffPo can't get science correct. We shouldn't pretend that they can.

Savonarola wrote:HuffPo can't get science correct. We shouldn't pretend that they can.

DOUG
Well, they did start a bullshit religion section. And they had Deepak Chopra as a pundit a few times. So maybe they should stick to politics.

Doug wrote:

Savonarola wrote:HuffPo can't get science correct. We shouldn't pretend that they can.

DOUG
Well, they did start a bullshit religion section. And they had Deepak Chopra as a pundit a few times. So maybe they should stick to politics.

Regardless of what else they might get right or wrong at any particular moment, they consistently get science wrong. They've even had anti-vax nuts write articles for them. Despite the fact that my political views often line up with theirs, the whole scientific illiteracy -- and ignorance of said illiteracy -- issue is a real turn-off.

Do you, Doug -- a professional philosopher with at least some exposure to ID's arguments -- agree with my assessment of this "anti-ID argument"?

Savonarola wrote:Do you, Doug -- a professional philosopher with at least some exposure to ID's arguments -- agree with my assessment of this "anti-ID argument"?

DOUG
Yes and no. Some creationists do claim that every aspect of the human body is optimally created given our necessities. For example, they claim that our eyes are perfectly made for our needs. Other animals may have better eyes, but they have specific needs that require that.

In the human body, God created a perfect design, equipped with all the organs, tissues, and cells necessary for health, production, and reproduction. The problem, asserts Dr. Ben Lerner, is when we as humans interfere with God's design for our bodies. Junk food, high-stress living, and neglecting exercise are just a few of the things we do to hinder our bodies' performance.

--advertisement for Body by God by Dr. Ben Lerner

Many more say that the human body was perfect, but it became imperfect because distant ancestors ate a magic fruit and screwed up an omniscient being's plans right away.

The greatest of all creations is man himself, the marvellous machine—precise and efficient...Yes, the body is a wonder machine, despite the defects from genetic copying errors (mutations) that have accumulated since the Fall of man brought on the Curse (Genesis 3).

--Answers in Genesis

BUT, you are right to point out that IDers are not committed to asserting optimum efficiency or perfection of every part of the human body simply to push the irreducible complexity angle. If design can be found in some parts, who cares about the other parts, right?

However, they would owe us an explanation of why it is that if God is the perfect designer, why the human body not better than it is at present for our needs. People lose vision as they get older, they have back pain, etc. etc. Even if irreducible complexity is found in the human body, why isn't it accompanied by optimum efficiency? So what if the human eye is designed? If the designer is omnipotent and omnisicient, it would be better than it is. Our vision usually doesn't last long enough at optimum levels for our lifespans, let alone the absurd lifespans described in the Bible. Every instance of poor design cuts against the IDers secret longing to prove that God is the designer. If the eye was designed, but not designed very well, then maybe Aristotle was right: the universe was created by a demigod, not God.

So it's as if the IDers are pointing to signs of intelligent design and hoping we ignore signs of unintelligent design. That's like pointing to the guardrail of a bridge and saying "Look at how well those reflectors work to warn drivers!" while ignoring the holes in the road across the bridge.

It seems that the IDers/creationists are caught in a bind: either they must argue that the human body is perfect, which is absurd, or they must explain why it is imperfect given a perfect designer that could have--should have-- done a better job, which is also absurd.

But you are still correct that this is a different point from irreducible complexity. The latter, if found, would cut against evolution. The IDers hope this means that the eye was designed. And that this design points to a supernatural source. And that this supernatural source is God.

They can't show irreducible complexity.
If they could, this would not imply that this is due to a supernatural source. (It could have been design by space aliens for all we know.)
And if they could show a supernatural source, this would not imply that it was God. (It could have been "Q" from Star Trek: TNG.)

They have a long way to go.

Doug wrote:Some creationists do claim that every aspect of the human body is optimally created given our necessities.

Then for these (very few) creationists, the demonstrable evidence that the body isn't perfect has power.

If the creationist argument is that a formerly perfect creation has been corrupted through some process or another, then the argument that the body isn't perfect has no effect. Note that both of your quotations (from Lerner and from AiG) reflect this type of belief rather than the "still-perfect" type.

Doug wrote:However, they would owe us an explanation of why it is that if God is the perfect designer, why the human body not better than it is at present for our needs.

Did you not just supply the explanation? The Fall, junk food, stress, etc. Whatever they want the cause to be, it "works" to support their idea.

Doug wrote:So it's as if the IDers are pointing to signs of intelligent design and hoping we ignore signs of unintelligent design. That's like pointing to the guardrail of a bridge and saying "Look at how well those reflectors work to warn drivers!" while ignoring the holes in the road across the bridge.

"The reflectors are there for a reason, but the potholes develop as normal wear and tear (i.e. as a result of imperfect evolution or sin or playing too much PS3)."
It seems to me like the argument being used by anti-IDers here is akin to saying that because the laundry and junk mail and beer bottles are strewn about a room apparently at random, we can conclude that the chandelier hanging from the ceiling isn't designed.

Doug wrote:It seems that the IDers/creationists are caught in a bind: either they must argue that the human body is perfect, which is absurd, or they must explain why it is imperfect given a perfect designer that could have--should have-- done a better job, which is also absurd.

You and I both know that the whole damn thing is absurd, but I don't agree that we have a counter for the latter claim. They've come up with "reasons" a perfect design can degrade into imperfect function. That the rough exists doesn't mean that there's no diamond.

Doug wrote:The IDers hope this means that the eye was designed. And that this design points to a supernatural source. And that this supernatural source is God.

Yet even imperfect design is design. You can point out that alleged imperfect design can mean demigods or Q. I simply point out -- as you finally have -- that nobody can show evidence of design. There's the rough, and we know what diamonds look like, but they haven't found any diamonds where they want to.

Savonarola wrote:It seems to me like the argument being used by anti-IDers here is akin to saying that because the laundry and junk mail and beer bottles are strewn about a room apparently at random, we can conclude that the chandelier hanging from the ceiling isn't designed.

DOUG
But it works both ways. If there is a designer, why do we only see this alleged evidence for the designer sometimes, and other times we see clear evidence of haphazard construction? Wouldn't the latter underscore the suggestion that the former is the result of chance?

Otherwise, we are like a person who throws 5,000 Boggle dice on the floor, and sees that 248 of them form complete sentences. "That shows that the fall of ALL of the dice were designed," the person concludes.

Remember, the IDer DOES claim that the entire human body is designed, even if only some parts show evidence of it. This would be like the person who says that the pattern of the laundry and junk mail and beer bottles strewn about a room apparently at random are all designed because the chandelier hanging from the ceiling is obviously designed--and that the laundry, beer bottles, and chandelier all had the same designer.

Doug wrote:Remember, the IDer DOES claim that the entire human body is designed, even if only some parts show evidence of it.

I agree that it works both ways against the uncommon argument that the entire body is designed -- as is -- without non-designer influences, but I don't think that most IDers argue that. They argue: design, therefore designer. Behe himself is an example: no rejection of common descent or standard evolutionary mechanisms, but an insistence that there is evidence of design.