Creation by committee

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
A friend of mine has suggested that looking at all the design flaws in animals does not disprove a designer. Indeed, she thinks that all these flaws are strong evidence for 'creation by committee'.

Imagine a committee with limited budget and which is affected by different political interests. We can see such design processes at work in our world today - they usually end up building something that can do the job but which is suboptimal, and often even dangerous.

Her suggestion is that evolution is not as good an explanation as design by committee because over time - given a relatively stable environment - evolution should weed out the flaws. Committees will instead add flawed solutions to original problems and never get anywhere unless they revamp the whole system (explaining mass extinctions).

What point would you suggest I raise with her that could disprove or strongly weigh against her thesis?
 

michabo

reason, evidence
Nov 11, 2003
11,355
493
49
Vancouver, BC
Visit site
✟14,055.00
Faith
Atheist
What exactly is she arguing against? Natural selection? It sounds like she accepts evolution, just rejects the mechanisms.

Questions for her:
- do all offspring survive to reproduce?
- are all children in a given year equally likely to survive to reproduce?
- are children identical to their parents?

If she says 'no' to all of those, then evolution by natural selection seems inevitable.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
53
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟29,118.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
michabo said:
What exactly is she arguing against? Natural selection? It sounds like she accepts evolution, just rejects the mechanisms.

Questions for her:
- do all offspring survive to reproduce?
- are all children in a given year equally likely to survive to reproduce?
- are children identical to their parents?

If she says 'no' to all of those, then evolution by natural selection seems inevitable.

Yes, she is basically arguing against natural selection, saying that selection by intelligent entities working in committee with budget restraints and political influences would be more likely to give us what we see than natural selection.

She thinks that natural selection would make things fitter for their environment than intelligent selection. And that many creatures are too vulnerable or weak or generally poorly designed to fit the natural selection model.

Great questions.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
David Gould said:
A friend of mine has suggested that looking at all the design flaws in animals does not disprove a designer. Indeed, she thinks that all these flaws are strong evidence for 'creation by committee'.

Perhaps she never went to sunday school to learn the story about adam and eve and the tree of life and the tree of death. We have "flaws" because mankind and even all of creation is currently in a fallen state. The good news is that God has a plan of redemption and restoration. WE look forward to a day when there will be no more death, no more pain, misery and suffering. The animals will live together in peace and they will no longer devour one another.

Isaiah 11:6-9
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
[7] The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
[8] The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den.
[9] They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
As the waters cover the sea.

Just like Adam and Eve were given a choice between life and death, each individual today is given that same choice. We are told that one third of the people will choose life and two thirds will choose death.

Zech. 13:8-9
And it shall come to pass in all the land,"
Says the Lord,
"That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
But one-third shall be left in it:
[9] I will bring the one-third through the fire,
Will refine them as silver is refined,
And test them as gold is tested.
They will call on My name,
And I will answer them.
I will say, 'This is My people';
And each one will say, 'The Lord is my God.' "
 
Upvote 0

Arkanin

Human
Oct 13, 2003
5,592
287
40
Texas
✟7,151.00
Faith
Anglican
Politics
US-Libertarian
So, what's a better argument: evolution is so impossible as a mechanism that it will never create anything, or evolution should create tons of perfect creatures and that's not how the world's are?

This is one of those situations where you need to pick one and stick with it.
 
Upvote 0
G

GoSeminoles!

Guest
David Gould said:
A friend of mine has suggested that looking at all the design flaws in animals does not disprove a designer. Indeed, she thinks that all these flaws are strong evidence for 'creation by committee'.

What point would you suggest I raise with her that could disprove or strongly weigh against her thesis?

Actually, I would congratulate her for inventing such a highly entertaining and original hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0