Home » Philosophy, Religion » The Reason for Imperfect, Self-Destructing Designs — Passover and Easter Thoughts

The Reason for Imperfect, Self-Destructing Designs — Passover and Easter Thoughts

[HT: idnet.com.au]

Would an intelligent designer deliberately build a biological system that self destructs. Can something be intelligently designed that is reproductively unfit? Absolutely!

But first consider the essay ID’s Broken Watchmaker Analogy, where a Darwinist unwittingly concedes an important point (in an otherwise confused, ignorant and illogical rant):

Products of intelligent design typically have capabilities that exceed usefulness and complications that would be profoundly maladaptive in a living system

Alexander Nussbaum

By that line of reasoning, the existence of humans evidences design. Why? Compared to bacteria, humans are profoundly maladaptive. Darwinists like Bryan Sykes concede the human species might exist for only 100,000 more years. The question then arises, in light of this, why are we here? Why aren’t we dead 100 times over (to quote geneticist Kondrashov who asked the same question)?

The problem for Darwinism is the fact creatures like humans are endowed with so many capabilities that are costly from a reproductive standpoint. Indeed, lost upon the Darwinists is the fact Natural Selection ought to select against certain designs and not for them.

Are there examples of intelligently designed self-destructing systems which have no survival advantage to themselves but serve utility to their intelligent designers? Yes. Fireworks come to mind, and even more to the point, intelligently designed biological organisms designed by Monsanto known as Terminators, Traitors and Zombies.

These plants are designed so that farmers can grow crops from seeds only once. Termintor/Traitor/Zombie organisms do not reproduce. Thus farmers making food from Terminator/Traitor/Zombies have to keep going back to the intelligent designer (Monsanto) in order to stay in the business of farming.

Now if we used Darwinist logic, since Monsanto Terminator/Traitor/Zombie plants can’t reproduce, by definition their fitness is ZERO. And since their fitness is zero, they don’t survive as a species, thus they can’t be intelligently designed. But clearly Darwinist “logic” isn’t logic at all, just theology pretending to be science. Nussbaum was right, not even meaning to be right. He gave justification as to why “bad design” (in terms of Darwinian fitness) is actually good design.

Certainly living systems feel the need to survive or at least behave like they feel the need to survive. When this need of survival is unmet because of sickness and starvation, it is easy to presume there is no intelligent designer since it is presumed an intelligent designer ought to work to satisfy the need of the organism to live and reproduce since the designer created the organism. But this is a presumption only, and contrary to evidence! Monsanto gives a powerful counter example to Darwinist theology masquerading as science.

Unlike Darwinists, I’m willing to call theological speculations theology, and not even pretend to call them science. And here is my speculation. The intelligent designer Monsanto deliberately made maladaptive, sickly organisms so as to assert Monsanto’s importance in the scheme of things. Is it too much of a stretch then to think the Intelligent Designer of the Universe has intelligently designed life and the universe to eventually self-destruct so that He asserts His importance in the scheme of things?

If supposing God made humans immortal without making humans aware of their need of Him, would that be a good design? Maybe, maybe not, but suffice to say unless Darwinists can answer such questions, they have no business insisting maladaptive, self-destructing, “imperfect” systems are evidence against God’s intelligent design much less passing off such speculations as settled science.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 8:20 and 2 Cor 4:17 pointed out that life and the universe are deliberately subject to self-destruction in order to highlight God’s importance and God’s greater works. I’ve often said intelligently designed games like football have meaning because of the possibility of losing teams. There is no reason an Intelligent Designer must make everything perfect. If every football team were perfect, the super bowl would be utterly meaningless.

Would God make an imperfect design? Yes. Recall in John 9:3 what Jesus said, “This man was born blind so that God’s power could be shown in him.” Health is meaningful because of the possibility of sickness, life is meaningful because of the possibility of death, perfect designs are meaningful because of the existence of imperfect designs.

Now, admittedly these are all theological speculations on my part, and in no way are they intended to represent the views of the ID community. I merely write them to point out, that unless the Darwinists can utterly prove that the Intelligent Designer will only make perfect designs, they have no business asserting bad designs are evidence against intelligent design, and they certainly have no business passing off shaky philosophical and theological speculations as settled science.

I arrived at these theological speculations because even I have wondered why so great an Intelligent Designer would make such an imperfect world. I’ve provided in these paragraphs my answer to the “bad design argument”. Even “bad designs” like the blind man’s blindness in John 9:3 can (in the end) be good designs. And similarly the “bad designs” of the plagues of Egypt and the “bad design” of death have made possible the events we associate with Passover and Easter.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to The Reason for Imperfect, Self-Destructing Designs — Passover and Easter Thoughts

  1. 1

    If we’re going to be fair about applying this logic to everyone:

    that unless the Darwinists can utterly prove that the Intelligent Designer will only make perfect designs, they have no business asserting bad designs are evidence against intelligent design

    …then IDists have no business asserting that good “designs” are evidence for an intelligent designer, either. Thus Sal has made the whole ID argument disappear in a puff of smoke. Thanks Sal!

  2. Nick,

    So nice to see you.

    …then IDists have no business asserting that good “designs” are evidence for an intelligent designer

    Incorrect, and you answer a question I didn’t pose.

    Jet planes are good designs. They evidence an intelligent designer. Any design is still a design.

    The question at hand is whether “bad designs” can be used as evidence against an intelligent designer. The answer is no. Monsanto is a case in point. Your frienemy Jerry Coyne rails against designs that may cause death or impede reproduction as evidence against design. Coyne is wrong, wouldn’t you agree.

  3. …then IDists have no business asserting that good “designs” are evidence for an intelligent designer, either.

    The goodness or badness of a design is irrelevant to something being designed. Computer viruses and malware can be considered “bad designs”. Self-destructing biological organisms like Monsanto’s Zombies can be considered “bad designs”.

    The goodness, badness, or imperfection of a design is not a means of determining if there is an intelligent designer of the artifact in question. You’re attributing arguments to ID proponents, which the majority in the modern day aren’t really making.

    We have business arguing “good design” is evidence of an intelligent designer because both good, bad, and imperfect designs are still designs.

    The “bad design” argument fails because:

    1. the designer isn’t necessarily God

    2. even if the Designer is God, he is not logically obligated to make perfect designs, or at the least no one has proven he is obligated to only make perfect designs (like eyes that always see).

    So Jerry Coyne is wrong. Wouldn’t you agree?

  4. “the existence of humans evidences design” – SCordova

    Yes, because humans ‘design/make’ things. We have experiential knowledge of ‘designing’.

    It is an important challenge for IDT, whether human beings count as ‘intelligent designers’ or not. Dembski calls us ‘mundane designers’ in contrast with ‘transcendental designers’ (1998). The post above flips from small id to Big ID with seemingly little discernment (the sacred Game of USAmerican football!?).

    SCordova speaks of Monsanto as an ‘intelligent designer.’ But surely on the topic of/ when the topic is ‘origins of life’ we are not speaking of a Monsanto-like ‘intelligent designer/Intelligent Designer’ (the second option, which Monsanto isn’t, being a non-sacred entity or corporation).

    To answer Sal’s question directly: bad designs still count as evidence for design. Which design? Whose design? How or why did the designing happen? These would seem to be the more important questions.

    Accepting human beings as ‘intelligent designers’ opens a different branch from the IDM’s predominant focus thus far. It was RBH, back on the ARN list several years back who coined the term ‘multiple designers theory’ (MDT). I have not yet seen a satisfactory answer to him and his challenge to ‘single designer/Designer theory’ (SDT) by anyone in the IDM. Has Sal come to accept RBH’s MDT by including human beings in his version of IDT?

    “Is it too much of a stretch then to think the Intelligent Designer of the Universe has intelligently designed life and the universe to eventually self-destruct so that He asserts His importance in the scheme of things?” – SCordova

    Or Her or Its, given that “Intelligent design has theological implications, but it is not a theological enterprise. Theology does not own [small id] intelligent design,” according to Dembski (2004). As such, there would be no way to determine a Gender for the Intelligent Designer that SCordova mentions.

    Let us remember the feminine gender as well during these days, since more than one woman watched a man/Man (designer/Designer) being nailed to a tree some (shorter than evolutionary-time) years ago.

    Blessed (western) Easter weekend!
    Gregory

    p.s. I am *not* a ‘(neo-)Darwinist,’ but it makes no sense to call Darwinism-the-ideology as ‘theology’ since there is no G-D involved; dogmatic science, sure, but ‘theology,’ no. Please check your premises, Sal.

  5. My version of the Multiple Designer hypothesis is here. It’s far better than Dr. Hoppe’s (RBH) in my not-so-humble-opinion. :-)

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....g-answers/

  6. Again I refer you to Newton’s Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning- Rule 1:

    admit no more causes of natural things than are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances,

    This pertain not only to the design inference in general but also to any multiple designer scenario. And once it is demonstrated that matter, energy, necessity and/ or chance can do it, then we don’t have a design inference.

    And then we have Intelligent Design is NOT Optimal Design-

    As far as darwinism and theology, well it is obvious that father time, mother nature and some unknown process are being worshipped even if it ain’t being openly acknowledged.

  7. Which design? Whose design? How or why did the designing happen? These would seem to be the more important questions.

    Well, Gregory, first things first. And first we have to determine what is designed. The only way to answer your “important” questions is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

    And the big issue is it is easy to understand the “how’s and why’s” with artifacts that we are familiar with. That is artifacts that are equal to less than our current capabilities. But even with that, we still don’t know exactly who designed Stonehenge- nor why nor how. But we keep studying and digging to try to answer the questions.

    That said, given that the design Intelligent Design is dealing with is way above our current capabilities to reproduce it is going to be very difficult to answer your questions. But all that means is we need more resources.

Leave a Reply