Unintelligent Design
Lost amid all the recent discussions of intelligent design -- including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's decision this past Friday to sign a bill that allows teachers in his state to "supplement" classes on evolution with talk of creationism -- is one simple basic fact. The human species isn't intelligently designed.
When you get right down to it, from an engineering perspective, the design of the human mind (and for the matter the human body) is a bit of mess.
Take, for instance, human memory, and the trouble we often have in remembering even the most basic facts -- where did we put our keys? Where did we park our car? Because our brains so often blur our memories together. Human eyewitness testimony is often no match for even a low-rent survelllance camera, and memory can fail even in life-or-death circumstances. (6% of all skydiving fatalities, for instance, are from divers that forgot to pull their ripcords),
Our troubles with memory in turn lead to an unending litany of problems that the psychologist Timothy Wilson collectively refers to as "mental contamination", in which irrelevant information frequently, ranging from the physical attractiveness of political candidates to random numbers on a roulette wheel, subconsciously cloud human judgments. If an ugly child throws an ice-filled snowballs, for instance, we judge that child to be delinquent, but when an especially attractive child does the same thing, we excuse him, saying he's just "having a bad day." A study published earlier this month showed that people's moral judgments are more severe when made in a disgusting, soiled pizza-box filled office than when in an office that is neat as a pin; another, which appeared just last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that voters are more likely to favor school policies if the balloting takes place in a school than if it takes place in an apartment building. We may aspire, as Aristotle thought, to be "the rational animal", but in reality the flotsam and jetsam of barely conscious memory frequently intercedes.
At this point, 30 years after the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and his late collaborator Amos Tversky started documenting a rash of fallacies in human reasoning, the idea that the human mind would be "perfect in His image" is as outdated (and narcissistic) as the idea that the solar system would revolve around the planet earth.
Imperfections riddle the body as well; the human spine supports 70% of our body weight with a single column, where four might have distributed the load better (greatly reducing the incidence of debilitating back pain), and the human retina is effectively installed backwards, with its array of outgoing neural fibers coming out of the front rather than the back, saddling us with an entirely needless blindspot.
The only theory that can really make sense of these needless imperfections is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which holds that humans (and all other life forms) evolve through a blind process known as descent-with-modification, in which new life forms represent random modifications of earlier life forms -- with no central overseer to guide the process. Such a random process can, over time, lead populations of creatures to become more adapted to their environment, but it is also vulnerable to getting stuck, in the sort of good-enough-but-not-perfect solutions that mathematicians call local maxima.
A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for government work" but far from perfect.
Darwin gives a natural explanation that indicates poorly-designed features should be common in biology. The theory of intelligent design, in contrast, has a serious problem explaining such phenomena: an intelligent designer that could perceive the whole landscape could just pick us up and move us to higher ground. That this has never happened is clear testament both to the wisdom of the theory of natural selection and the implausibility of intelligent design.
The problem with the Lousiana law is not just that it seeks to mix church and state, a situation that the Constitution's framers rightly sought to avoid, but that it is predicated on the assumption that creationists have a reasonable theory with which to counter evolution with - where in truth they simply don't.
-- Gary Marcus, Professor of Psychology at New York University, is the author of Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I guess BO must believe in creationism since he's a Christian.
Not necessarily.
Many Christians find creationism to be an allegory or they believe Adam And Eve happened but once out of Eden evolutionary forces took over. They see evolution as God's method, his way of allowing nature to work. He wrote the rule book for nature then let it do its thing. Kind of like the analog 'insect' robots, they have a basic program, they fumble around until they figure out the best course through their environment.
They give chance a chance.
Exactly. Vatican II established that Catholicism and science do not conflict. I grew up going to a catholic school. we were taught that the bible stories are allegory. Pope Paul saw the writing on the wall as far as scientific theory was concerned.
Interestingly enough, I got my bachelor's degree at a Catholic university and the priests who taught the religion classes I took didn't put forth the creation myths (both of them in the Bible) as literal fact but as an allegorical story.
An allegory of what, though? I don't see how there was ever any value in those stories, but there certainly hasn't been any in a long, long time.
jvarga
Your most profound comment needs to be copied and distributed far and wide.
What enough Louisianians don't realize is, the group behind the new Louisiana law pushing intelligent design into public school classrooms is about using the tax-supported public sector to promote their particular (and peculiar, IMO) branch of evangelical Christianity ONLY.
See, under THEIR definition, YOU, a Catholic, probably wouldn't even qualify as a Christian. You'd be a lost sinner; an infidel. And so would Mormons, Methodists, Episcopalians, and maybe even all Baptists who don't belong to the Southern Baptist Convention. Or, who can just think for themselves and prefer not to think of the nature of God or the role of religion in a very narrowly defined manner.
Sound familiar? If I were a devoutly religious member of any of the above congregations, I would view this as what it is: an attack on MY religious freedom.
Your guess would be incorrect. Only fundamentalist Christians who take the entire bible literally believe in creationism. Most Christian denominations do not believe the Old Testament word-for-word (i.e., it's preposterous to imagine Noah literally coaxed thousands of animals onto an arc. The world wasn't really created in 7 days).
either way, they believe in a Magical Humanoid Male Being with Super Powers...
"Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man." george carlin
http://www
It's an old joke but...What kind of a designer would put a sewage treatment plant right next to a recreational area?
The universe..
Intelligent design is bad science, but even worse theology.
Luther said: "If you can deduce the existence of the Trinity through philosophy and logic, then faith means nothing."
Intelligent design destroys faith and replaces it with scientific reasoning.
A poor trade indeed.
ID doesn't even belong to science. Any scientific theory must be falsifiable in principle, while ID is not, since one can always argue that God can design things in whichever way he likes.
If we were intelligently designed and there were an intelligent designer, who was damned intelligent to "design" that creative genius...a
Another perspective on the design of the human body can be found in Og Mandino's book "The Greatest Miracle in the World."
On another note, this piece is representative on Liberals thoughts about America. Because of a few imperfections, they become blind to the greatness of the country.
No, we simply don't wallow in simplistic nationalism. Let's remember, the Nazis demonstrated well what happens when a country becomes too full of itself; as did the Romans and the British Empire, for that matter.
On the subject of God, though, the real point is: you are entitled to your "beliefs" as long as they don't encroach upon the liberty of others. Whether you're a Baptist, a Scientologist, a Muslim, a Mormon, a Catholic, a Jew, a Buddhist or a member of any one of the hundreds of cargo cults out of the islands, that's fine as long as you don't start expecting or insisting that other people follow your beliefs.
In regards to your second paragraph, nicely stated. More often than not that's the crux of these religious folks: that their beliefs are right and all others are wrong, that it's their job to see to it that others see things in the same light as they do.
It has always amused me that these believers exhibit the need to have their believes validated by others in their peer groups and that they feel a strong urge to convert others to their beliefs, as if there is truth in numbers.
I'm NOT blind to the potential greatness of my country. However, the "few imperfections" that you are talking about are MORE than enough for me to not consider this country great!
And as regards the statement that throwing out the ID baby with the bathwater is a bad idea, perhaps you should look at the whole idea! This is the same logic as "We exist, therefore we were created. Therefore there is a creator. We shall call him GOD and he has such and such attributes. Let us all bow down and pray to GOD."
I believe in science and refute intelligent design and creationism, theories for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, beyond wishing them to be so. Therefore, I hate America.
Ladies and gentleman, the conservative mind at work.
Your reply is representative of conservative thought, which tends to disregard entire arguements if they lead to uncomfortable conclusions.
sdskelton: I suggest that you confuse "Continuing to hold to principles" for "blind to greatness.
This country IS great in many ways. But great wrongs have also been perpetrated in her name. To offer blind support and allegiance NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE is not Patriotism, but Nationalism that tends to "enable" corruption and evil, as well as undermining the good that IS done.
Officials are not "our country." They must be held to high standards, not given whatever leeway they desire.
If you truly love your country, you must DEMAND that our elected officials act with honor, integrity, and ethics. If you allow them to undermine our principles, you are NOT a patriot, but a pretender.
Nipples on men?!
Tails on Human fetuses in utero
Goosebumps? (a mechanism to raise our fur)
Allergies?
Not to mention the fact that in our recorded history, evolution is evident in the human body, and easily witnessed in other species?
The sad thing is what this imaginary God did. Gave us no wings nor the free will to decide whether or not to fly, but gave us the ability to murder, and the free will to decide who we would kill. Just think of the gas savings his angels must have. In his image indeed. By the way, there were no such things as viruses until the apple was eaten or some such drivel. Creative BS is more to the point. The continuation of the dumbing down of education, let the teachers provide the true creative design in arts and sciences and forget this religious hidden agenda drivel.
My problem with Intelligent Design is that it's NOT SCIENCE.
Are there really that many people out there that take the Bible literally? That scares me.
That's the point. Where is ID or creationism fit the criteria of science. It doesn't! Believe what you want; Darwin isn't about who created the universe. I can't believe adults have such horse-and-buggy thoughts.
EXACTLY!! Science has NEVER tried to answer the WHY, but rather the HOW.
Science taught in publicly-funded schools and in publicly-funded museums says without any uncertainty that a higher power absolutely does not and absolutely cannot exist. How can scientists be so certain? Because they are the self-appointed hight priest authorities of our day who they believe are privy to much information the rest of us Neanderthals just can't seem to wrap our inferior minds around. Just as certain religious beliefs in the past have been pushed on the people by certain authorities, scientists of today don't even seem to realize they are doing same.
So what's the average explanation from a "scientist" on how life started? From lightening hitting a puddle of mud or possibly on the back of a magic crystal. This is another theory which is gaining popularity amongst the elite minds of our time. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in evolution but to somehow apply the theory of evolution without coming up with a better original cause than mud or crystals is bound to sprout some questions from inquisitive minds. So how do scientists of today explain the trillions of stars and possibly trillions of planets and everything in between including the laws of chemistry, biology, physics etc..? Well our best and brightest scientists tell us that it was a big ball of ammonia which started on fire and exploded, or what I like to call the "big ass bang".
Are we really to accept this as our new, enlightened beliefs?
After many years of college, I have never heard any professor or instructor say categorically that a higher power does not or cannot exist. Neither have you. You hear what you want to hear, and what you want to hear is something that you can use to prove that science is wrong. It is. The scientific method is based on being wrong repeatedly, but gradually eliminating the error via objectively repeatable experiment. And we all know that a good bit of scientific wisdom is wrong at any given time, although we don't know for sure WHAT bit. What your method is based on is equally clear: repeating your meaningless blabber indefinitely in an attempt to justify your original prejudices. Give it a rest. Nobody cares.
Oh bullshit. Science does not teach that God cannot exist. Try listening to the scientists and not the rhetoric from the loony side of the religious (like the Discovery Institute). Science does show that there is no credible evidence for god, but that's it. It does not say God can't exist.
As to your question about how life started, evolution is not a theory about how life started; it is a theory about how life evolves. It does not address the beginning of life. Science does not say the big bang was a ball of ammonia that exploded. It shows that the universe began from a single explosive incident, and as yet has no theory as to how that was caused.
You are looking for a "root cause" or "first cause". As yet, science can't answer that. It has and will try to find that answer. Religion will tell you what to think. Can you not see why religion is of no use in understanding the universe? God doesn’t answer anything. Saying God created the universe is of no use because you can’t falsify that. If God created the universe, then who created God? God is a question, not an answer.
science doesn't say that God cannot exist but you can draw an easy conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that there is a God.
Pascals' Wager was that there was a 50/50 chance that there may or may not be a higher being but clearly the odds are much greater that a supreme being does not exist.
So even though scientists have to acknowledge that there is a chance in hell I seriously doubt many of them worry about going to hell.
Science taught in public schools and public museums is NOT being taught that there is no god or creator! Our children are not being taught about god or the creator one way or the other!!! Science does not even ATTEMPT to answer the questions about "WHY", and has NEVER done so! By contrast, Religion has not only attempted to answer the "WHY" but has ALSO attempted to answer Science's traditional bailiwick "HOW"
No it doesn't. Science teaches that this higher power cannot be proven to exist scientifically. Big difference. Scientists are not "pushing" their "beliefs" on people; this seems to be a common misconception, that somehow scientific theory and method are matters of "opinion". Reality is not a matter of opinion.
Religious dogma, on the other hand, is ONLY a matter of opinion, and since everyone has their own opinion, there are is awful lot of religious variety. Religious knowledge taught us that bathing was bad, different people were witches, the earth is at the center of the universe, and that sickness is caused by evil spirits.
Science has brought us hygiene, medicine, computers, cars, airplanes, rocketships, the Intertubes, television, indoor plumbing, vaccines, telephones, light bulbs, microwave ovens. . . the list is virtually endless.
If scientists seem to be "pushing their beliefs", that's a misperception; most scientists have very little patience for people who don't understand reality or who challenge it, or for people who criticize complex and well-researched and documented science but are too intellectually lazy to actually try to comprehend it.
Complaining about "inferior Neanderthal minds" is just saying "that stuff is really boring and complicated and doesn't intuitively make sense to me but I can't go learn about it because Dancing With the Stars is almost on but feel qualified to criticize the parts I misheard somewhere".
You were obviously homeschooled, and i'm sorry to say your parents lied to you. Public schools science, at the elementary or college level, don't say that God doesn't exist. They don't bring up God one way or the other. That is for religious institutions.
If we were created in God's "perfect" image by "Intelligent Design" (an oxymoron by the way) what the hell are the following parts for?
1) The Appendix - Totally useless for anything except killing you if it ruptures.
2) Toenails - WTF? WHY do perfect humans need toenails????
3) Canine Incisors - What do we need FANGS for? (other than Vampire Movies.)
4) The Coccyx - (stop snickering back there and go look it up)
5) Earlobes - Some people have them, some don't. Why? What are they FOR?
There are many, many more, but to think, even for a moment, that we are somehow UNIQUE in the world is just plain CONCEITED.
1) Appendix - seems to hold useful bacteria when illness empties the intestines of most of the bacteria.
2) dunno
3) Incisors still have a place in cutting and chewing meat.
4) Coccyx - OBVIOUSLY a tailbone remnant. Avatars prove this.
5) Earlobes - may have evolved as a SEXUAL attraction.
But if were intelligently designed, what is sickness all about? Why do we need sleep? Why do men have nipples? etc.
some people do have tailbones.
I've been saying this for years.
IF this is the best design that God or whomever could come up with then intelligent is NOT the word I would use to describe it. A real God would have made us a LOT better. As we are now, we have a pretty lousy design.
We've just learned to adjust to it the best most of us can.
Lousy Design would be a better idea.
LB, and don't forget about the scriptural part about mane being " created in the image of God".
If that's true, I wonder how clear the heavenly reception was on that image...an
Maybe He's rather imperfect Him (or Her) self.
Sorry, that's "man" instead of "mane". Too much Muddy Waters...
What about David Funder more recent work sugesting the cognitive foibles pointed out by Khaneman and Tversky are actually quite functional in most everyday situations?
If we're designed so poorly, why are we building "intelligent systems" that think MORE like we do to make decisions about credit worthiness, risk analysis, threat detection, and other incredibly complex judgments?
Sorry professor, your argument rings thin with me.
Our "intelligent systems" took hundreds of millions of years to evolve naturally. We share them at least with other primates. Monkeys and apes have recently been shown to engage in behaviors identical to risk analysis and threat detection and "other incredibly complex judgments". Go to sciencedai
I can't figure out how we disagree on the facts here.
We just disagree on the next logical step.
You think this could only have occurred through evolution.
I think evolution is a possibility, but there are other possible explanations.
You logic is based on the confirmation bias. If X then Y. Y is true, therefore X must be true. This is a logical fallacy.
If there is no intelligent designer, we must have evolved to be this way. (True)
If we evolved to be this way, there is no intelligent designer. (False)
Because we are still the most complex intelligence that we know. Our computers are advancing, but the smartest computer in the world is still dumber than a dog. Dumber than a chihuahua. By contrast, your own brain (faulty as it is!) can still perform hundreds of trillions of actions per second, where the FASTEST computer is barely up to the rate of tens of trillions, and even then they STILL aren't intelligent!
Right on! Only consider the system we have been given for reproduction, and the myriad breakdowns and diseases and parasites associated therewith!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
