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documenting a rash of fallacies in human reasoning, the idea that the human mind would be "perfect in His image" is as outdated (and narcissistic) as the idea that the solar system would revolve around the planet earth.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.

Comments

[JBS]

Playing "devil's advocate" here.

If you read the bible, the god of the old testament is pretty sub-optimal himself. Makes sense that if he did "design" man in his own image, it'd be a kind of shoddy make-work. Besides, it says right there, he was working overtime on Friday night, rushing to get the job done before the weekend.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Not only that, but the god of the Bible really has some kind of ego problem.

[bgregs]

Actually, if you look at all the gods "created" in that timeframe, you find that they all tend to be small brutish characters, with no more moral compass than a badly behaving 2 year old......

[HeevenSteven]

Gary, I heard you on NPR last week, I put Kluge on my Amazon wish list; I'll wait for the paperback.

I was just wondering, how do we know that 6% of all skydiving fatalities are from divers that forgot to pull their ripcords? I mean that isn't something we can know, is it?

[martinchill]

that bugged me, too.....

[bgregs]

We don't know if it's caused by them forgetting to pull the cord, but when we find their remains, the cord is still in place having not been pulled....­..

[HeevenSteven]

A guy I knew long ago died like that; his family thought it may have been suicide. I've heard about loosing altitude awareness, ground rush, loosing consciousness, base jumpers borrowing a chute with unfamiliar controls etc (not much time for on the job training from 1000 feet or less), but never forgetfulness.

[Sarasvati]

My favorite rebuttal to Intelligent Design: How intelligent is the design that locates the entertainment center next to the sewage disposal system?
In his book, "The Great Derangement" Matt Taibbi went under-cover at Pastor John Hagee's church. In one chapter he talks about a leader casting out demons, including the "demon" of intellect and the "demon" of philosophy. Intelligence seems to be unacceptable, at least to some fundamentalists and if you're trained not to think you can be convinced of anything.
The Evolution/­I.D. "debate" will not be settled until it's realized that matter arises out of Consciousness, not the other way around.

[swift goat pet for truth]

The amusing part is that the ID people say that evolution does not explain this, that or the other, while ID does not explain ANYTHING.

[midwestdoc]

In case anybody thinks that our retinas have to be the way they are for some deep reason, they should remember that squids and octopuses got it right, with the nerves coming out the back. It was just an initial accident that their ancestors headed for the right hill and ours headed for the wrong one. Then the gap became too big to switch.

[LorinM]

Really? Except our visual systems allow us to see color more richly and deeply than any other creature, and putting the photoreceptors at the back allows rhodopsin to be recycled quickly and efficiently. A small tradeoff.

The blind spot argument is stupid. When has anyone ever missed something because it came at them directly in line with their blind spot. The answer is never.

[swift goat pet for truth]

First of all, "we see color more richly and deeply than any other creature" depends on your point of view. Other animals see infared and ultraviolet. Other animals see only gray, but can see quite well in the dark. How come we can't see in the dark? Why can't we see in the light AND the dark? Pretty poor design, if you ask me.

"When has anyone ever missed something because it came at them directly in line with their blind spot?" 1) you would be surprised. 2) Two eyes often can compensate for this, but one eye cannot. 3) That does not address the question of why have a blind spot at all.

[DAE]

Sorry LorinM wrong again. Our visual system is identical to that of other higher primates, no better, no worse. Most other mammals have lost the capacity for tricolor vision that our reptilian ancestors possessed. In fact color vision was first evolved by fish and independently by the squid and octopus. Birds which evolved from a lineage of raptor dinosaurs have a more expansive spectral field than we do, seeing into the ultra-violet. Forgot to mention insects also have exquisite color vision and can see colors we cannot perceive. So LorinM go to the back of the classroom and learn something. You obviously know not of what you speak.

[kavan]

Don't the folks who are proponents of creationism realize they provide the most evidence against their claims? I mean, what intelligent designer would create creationinsts & religious zealots?

[HeevenSteven]

lol, yeah, or to turn it around to make sense to the I.D. crowd, what intelligent designer would design Richard Dawkins. See, you I.D.ers have a paradox now!

[NelsonC]

I think that the primary problem with Intelligent Design, is that both intelligence and design are human concepts.
It's like a group of woodchucks getting together and theorizing that all of creation was gnawed from a giant log.

[twofish]

A friend of mine once drew a cartoon of various animals gazing into the middle distance. Above the horse is a thought bubble: "And God created Horse in his own image." Above the chipmunk: "And God created Chipmunk in his own image." etc.

We're just the only ones who can babble about it, and write it down in a book. But somewhere in the depths of the sea, creatures might be thinking "And God created Whale in his own image." "And God created Squid in his own image."

[terramartom]

I have another belief that can be thrown into the mix. I believe that we are all really decendants of flying pink elephants named Dumbo! Religion - all emotion and no facts to support squat! All humanity has gotten from the invention of fictional corporate religion is intolerance and self-serving greed. To be ethical is a choice not a religion!

[Merlin7]

You are perfectly correct, but that won't faze the religionists. Religion is all about reassuring egotistical humans that they are special creations of the universe, so special that they will somehow survive death if they try hard enough and utter the appropriate incantations. They will -- and do -- believe all manner of nonsense if it leads to that happy conclusion.

[laocoon]

Religion is a way of diverting your spiritual nature to someone else's purpose. Religions all devolve into idolatry.

[Woody25]

The biggest problem with Intelligent Design is not the lack of intelligence in the design. The problem is in thinking that evolution must contradict ID. ID has no place in school whether you believe in it or not. It is faith pure and simple. To those that would demand equal time in a public school I would ask "Is your faith that tenuous as to be threatened by Darwins ideas?"

I believe in G-d and by extension the Intelligent Designer. But that's my choice, my faith. By the way, I like the lack of proof. From a faith stand point, If one could prove existence of an Itelligent Designer then my "faith" wouldn't mean much would it?

[martinchill]

"By the way, I like the lack of proof."

astounding. simply astounding. that logic is foolproof.

[Angelaaaa]

No, lack of proof is essential. If God is faith but proof denies faith so therefore proving there is a God ... oh, everybody - just go read your Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy properly - it truly is the Good Book.

[bgregs]

But when it comes to faith, having proof would be a detriment.­....

[bgregs]

And I must say that I envy your faith! I myself am not a man of faith, I never have been, and while I can't say with a certainty, it's pretty likely that I will never be a man of faith. The uncertainty that I face of after life, compared to the knowledge that you can have based on your faith.....­. Once again, I envy you.

I also THANK you, for not trying to place your faith on such a pedestal that it becomes weaker when *I* don't believe it!!

[laocoon]

Actually evolution does eliminate the logical need for an Intelligent designer as an explanation for why these forms exist. It does not prove there is none but does eliminate the logical need for one as an explanation. i think that used to be a big philosophical problem.

[Lust4Lost]

i love asking believers in id if they support circumcision.

you can almost see the wheels slowly grinding to a halt

[andyboy]

Intelligent design and creationism are two different things. I'm reading Darwin's Black Box Tenth anniversary edition and the author does not embrace creationist dogma in any way.

If life is indeed evolving and changing, which I think very few would argue it is not. Then of course it is being intelligently designed. We are designing ourselves and all the animals are designing themselves. I think it's pretty safe to say there is no evidence of an unseen hand tinkering under the hood of human, animal or plant evolution.

But there is a designer. You, me, it whatever. Always seeking an edge. Changing. Growing. Adapting .

Life itself is an intelligent designer. By virtue of existing within it we make the entire universe "alive" by definition. What Darwin describes is a process that is taking place post creation of life. Evolution. Nothing can come from nothing.

It's the origin of the species not the origin of life itself that Darwin attempted to understand. The question of who or what created life is a separate one. And it is a question noone can know at this point in human evolution. Alas, we are not nearly smart enough to solve that riddle.

[DAE]

The "designer" is the unthinking process of evolutionary change by natural selection and other fortuitous means. Biologists do not deny the fact that biological systems show design only that there need not be an intelligent agent behind it. Design in nature is the product of purely naturalistic forces.

[bgregs]

Your claim that they are two different things is belied by the fact that so many of the public supporters of ID are the very same ones who tried to get creationism taught in public schools until very recently!

[wadenelson1]

Any pediatrician can tell you the eustachian tube is poorly designed.

[peterg76]

"Intelligent Design" is about preventing science / thinking.

[Mikie]

The problem with your argument is that you assume that the created can understand the reasoning and logic of a creator. If intelligence was involved in the evolution of our species its motives and logic would be well beyond our ability to understand. Besides any flaw that you perceive in Homo sapiens is irrelevant considering the success that we have had (there are 6.5 billion of us) in populating and adapting to the changing world that we live in. Are we to believe that there would be more of us in this world if we had just 4 vertebra or that we would be happier if some of us weren't as forgetful.

The problem that we run into in suppressing the discussion of Intelligent Design is that life is extremely complex and the more that we learn about life the more complex we realize that it is. We are reaching a point in our understanding of the process of life where it takes more faith to accept that we happened by random chance than to embrace the notion of a creator. Granted Intelligent Design should not be presented as science, but we shouldn't ignore it in our schools either. It is one of the more interesting philosophical subjects of our time.

[Paradym]

"It is one of the more interesting philosophical subjects of our time."
No, it isn't.

Just because we do not have the answer now does not preclude us from having the answer in the future.

"considering the success that we have had (there are 6.5 billion of us) in populating­..."
That the earth's resources can only support about a third of the current population, one would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to consider overpopulation a success.

[jvarga]

"We are reaching a point in our understanding of the process of life where it takes more faith to accept that we happened by random chance than to embrace the notion of a creator."

Let me guess, you're not a scientist?

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

we, collective humanity, understand an extraordinary amount of the known universe - without any help whatsoever from any religious text nor divine intervention or inspiration.

care to elaborate more about the constant flaws that are revealed in JUST the homo sapiens sapiens - superfluous organs, computing power that we've managed to out-create in just a handful of decades and will utterly surpass at some point in the near future...

face it religion relies upon blind faith, science encourages rational belief through verifiable statements, logic and clear explanation - one must simply take the time and effort to understand it and you are encouraged, demanded as a matter of fact, to produce better data and theories.

[dadw5boys]

Humans are a virius and who ever created humans did the right thing by discarding them on a rock in the middle of no where so they can not infect the Universe.