The Complexity of the Human Body Indicates Intelligent Design

[Nottingham40]

http://www.standard-freelancer.com/content/842

Note: Not an attempt at converting anyone just a discussion.

 

[laptoppop]

The more we study biology the more complicated and wonderful it becomes. The simplistic understanding of Darwin's day has been replaced by an incomplete, but much greater understanding of the beautiful complexities, from mechanisms within cells to enzymes and proteins, DNA, RNA, etc. etc.

 

[gluadys]

http://www.standard-freelancer.com/content/842

Note: Not an attempt at converting anyone just a discussion.

Actually, complexity in itself is not an argument against evolution. One needs to show that the complexity could not have come about through the gradual transformation of simpler features. This was the criterion Darwin himself set out when dealing with the evolution of complex organs, and is also, I believe, agreed to by proponents of Intelligent Design.

Now when we look at the human body and compare it to our nearest biological relatives and our hominid progenitors as preserved in the fossil record, the pertinent question becomes:

Is there a human physical feature so different and more complex than the equivalent feature in other hominids that it could not have evolved from them?

Our teeth are complex compared to a reptiles, but are they so much more complex than a gorillas that there could be no evolutionary relationship? No, they are not. There are clear differences, but they are minor, the sort of thing that can be accounted for by micro-evolution. Ditto for hands, eyes and any number of other features.

So granting the human body is complex, it is not so much more complex than other hominid bodies that it could not evolve from them. IOW gorilla and chimpanzee and homo erectus and australopithecene bodies are also complex. Just as complex as human bodies.

If there is any feature of the human body that could not evolve, it did not appear in our recent evolutionary history, but must have appeared much earlier, prior to the appearance of humans as such. So the design was not of humans, but of a human ancestor.

 

[Mallon]

Does the fact that our spines are poorly constructed for bipedalism similarly indicate UNintelligent design?

 

[Willtor]

Certainly we have the Scriptures to tell us life was intelligently designed, but if I were raised in a modern society without them, I'm not sure I would conclude it.

 

[Dannager]

On the contrary, the human body indicates either a long, evolutionary process or stupid design. No intelligent being in their right mind would give us screwed up eyes, jaws that aren't big enough for our teeth or superfluous, prone-to-infection organs. Either we evolved, or we were created by a novice.

 

[theFijian]

On the contrary, the human body indicates either a long, evolutionary process or stupid design. No intelligent being in their right mind would give us screwed up eyes, jaws that aren't big enough for our teeth or superfluous, prone-to-infection organs. Either we evolved, or we were created by a novice.

It was the Fall what did us in dont you know.

 

[Mallon]

It was the Fall what did us in dont you know.

Of course, we all know this is what ID advocates are thinking, but they'll never fess up to it because such a statement is clearly beyond the realm of testable science. It is clear that for all the intelligently designed systems they identify, there are as many poorly designed systems. And according to their own definitions, this necessarily indicates either no design at all, or a bumbling designer. We'll never hear it from their mouths, though. It runs counter to their agenda of wedging God down peoples' throats.

 

[lucaspa]

http://www.standard-freelancer.com/content/842

Note: Not an attempt at converting anyone just a discussion.

Complexity itself is not evidence for being manufactured by an intelligent being. Let's look at the following joke:

Three engineers are discussing the human body: an electrical engineer, a hydraulic engineer, and a civil engineer. The electrical engineer says "The human body was designed by an electrical engineer. Look at the complex of wires that carry electrical impulses that are the nerves and brain." The hydraulic engineer says "No, the human body was designed by a hydraulic engineer. Look at the magnificent pump that is the heart and the series of pipes that are the blood vessels." The civil engineer then says "You're both wrong. The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipe through the middle of a recreation area?"

Yes, if we look at the human body, there are some remarkable designs. BUT, there are also some really stupid ones. Running a toxic waste pipe thru the reproductive organs is one of them. There are others.

This joke highlights the argument against the idea that God directly made all designs: the conclusion is that God is sadistic, stupid, and suffering from Alzheimer's.

If God made ALL the designs, then He also had to make the stupid ones. BUT, we believe God is not stupid. This puts us into a dilemma and one faced by Christians in the period 1800 -1850, as biologists really started studying living plants and animals. They found some designs -- such as how rabbits digest food -- that were just downright cruel. Rabbits, because of their design, are forced to eat their own feces. Other designs were just dumb. And some designs were pretty smart in some animals and very dumb in others -- such as the octopus and human eyes. If there was a single being who made both the octopus and human eyes, then that being had to have "forgotten" how to make the good design of the octopus eye. Alzheimer's.

So, special creation was making real problems for Christians. If God actually did make ALL the designs in plants and animals, then that was saying some pretty bad things about God's character -- things that could not be true if God were what we believed Him to be.

This was why Christians so readily abandoned creationism in 1859 and embraced evolution: natural selection got God off the hook. Now God was not directly responsible for all those cruel and bad designs. Natural selection was.

Creationists, in their zeal to defend their literal Bible, are not thinking about the effect the arguments have on God. Creationism is so focussed on the literal Bible that it doesn't care what happens to God.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

ID in summary: The complexity of life is beyond that which I can comprehend. Therefore I attribute it to God.

 

[Dannager]

It was the Fall what did us in dont you know.

According to creationists. Unfortunately, ID advocates can't claim that the fall did anything, because that would destroy their thin veil of non-religious affiliation.

 

[gluadys]

Of course, we all know this is what ID advocates are thinking, but they'll never fess up to it because such a statement is clearly beyond the realm of testable science. It is clear that for all the intelligently designed systems they identify, there are as many poorly designed systems. And according to their own definitions, this necessarily indicates either no design at all, or a bumbling designer. We'll never hear it from their mouths, though. It runs counter to their agenda of wedging God down peoples' throats.

Actually I once read a paper of Dembski's on the poor quality of some biological designs in which he agreed that intelligent design simply means design by an intelligent mind--not necessarily optimum or benevolent design. For example the guillotine, despite its grisly purpose, is still designed. And a poor design for a car or a city or whatever, is still a design.

So, according to him, bad design is not an indication that something was not designed.

Which is fine as long as you don't also try to say that the Intelligent Designer is the God of Christianity.

 

[Scotishfury09]

I think there is a misconception of "poor design" in the human body. I think (notice think, I obviously don't have any science to back this claim, although I'm not sure it really needs it) that the human body is perfect for the plan that God has for us. God's plan of salvation through Christ was clearly not what the Jews thought their savior would be. They expected a worldly king to ride in and save the day. They got a teacher and a servant. If we keep looking at the body as the Jews looked for a savior we'll never find what we're looking for. This is a crude analogy, but my point is still the same.

 

[Deamiter]

I think there is a misconception of "poor design" in the human body. I think (notice think, I obviously don't have any science to back this claim, although I'm not sure it really needs it) that the human body is perfect for the plan that God has for us. God's plan of salvation through Christ was clearly not what the Jews thought their savior would be. They expected a worldly king to ride in and save the day. They got a teacher and a servant. If we keep looking at the body as the Jews looked for a savior we'll never find what we're looking for. This is a crude analogy, but my point is still the same.

I think you'd be stretching quite a bit to claim that our bodies are perfect for anything. They're certainly sufficient, but hardly perfect.

 

[laptoppop]

I think you'd be stretching quite a bit to claim that our bodies are perfect for anything. They're certainly sufficient, but hardly perfect.

Again, God Himself did not declare the creation "perfect" -- He called it "Good". It involves many engineering tradeoffs as part of the marvelous system that He has put forth in demonstration of His marvelous power.

A perfect being does not necessarily make a "perfect" creation. Just as things I might build do not express all of me, so things God might make do not express ALL of God.

 

[Dannager]

I think there is a misconception of "poor design" in the human body. I think (notice think, I obviously don't have any science to back this claim, although I'm not sure it really needs it) that the human body is perfect for the plan that God has for us. God's plan of salvation through Christ was clearly not what the Jews thought their savior would be. They expected a worldly king to ride in and save the day. They got a teacher and a servant. If we keep looking at the body as the Jews looked for a savior we'll never find what we're looking for. This is a crude analogy, but my point is still the same.

I'm not saying that our bodies should be incredible works of perfect engineering. But extremely detrimental physical characteristics should not exist in an intelligently designed organism. One would expect an intelligently designed creature to be, y'know, designed intelligently. We aren't.

 

[random_guy]

Again, God Himself did not declare the creation "perfect" -- He called it "Good". It involves many engineering tradeoffs as part of the marvelous system that He has put forth in demonstration of His marvelous power.

A perfect being does not necessarily make a "perfect" creation. Just as things I might build do not express all of me, so things God might make do not express ALL of God.

That's a different view than I'm used to seeing. I've seen a lot of Creationists declare that when God declares Creation as "good", it means it's perfect, and that is why they are against evolution. It's interesting to see a difference view point.

 

[laptoppop]

That's a different view than I'm used to seeing. I've seen a lot of Creationists declare that when God declares Creation as "good", it means it's perfect, and that is why they are against evolution. It's interesting to see a difference view point.

Interesting -- we must be talking to different sets of creationists. Got any links? Thanks.

 

[Assyrian]

The usual argument is along the lines of 'God said the creation was perfect and a perfect creation could not include death'. It is good to see you going for the the biblical 'good' laptoppop rather than the usual YEC claim of perfect.

I'm not saying that our bodies should be incredible works of perfect engineering. But extremely detrimental physical characteristics should not exist in an intelligently designed organism. One would expect an intelligently designed creature to be, y'know, designed intelligently. We aren't.

It is easier if you are designing from scratch, but design by modification is more tricky. You have to keep intermediate forms viable too. Are some of the design flaws there because the optimum is simply not reachable through modification? 'If I was going there I wouldn't start from here' sort of thing?

 

[Deamiter]

Interesting -- we must be talking to different sets of creationists. Got any links? Thanks.

I haven't seen it much since I moved to posting in OT from open C&E. Still, while modding C&E, I encountered the claim rather regularly (though to be fair, most creationists dropped the claim after it was discussed at length).

As for promenant creationists, if you google "Ken Hamm good perfect" you'll find a number of citations of his claim that the Bible's "good" was in fact perfect until Adam messed it up. I can't find a really good source (found 4-5 second-hand quotes so far), and I need to get to work, but it fits with what I've read of Ken Hamm in the past.