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documenting a rash of fallacies in human reasoning, the idea that the human mind would be "perfect in His image" is as outdated (and narcissistic) as the idea that the solar system would revolve around the planet earth.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

[sociocanuck]

Ben Stein had me believe that ID proponents can turn natural selectionists into sputtering idiots who can't actually come up with a single shred of evidence that can't have holes poked all the way through it.

I guess he is completely unaware of the imperfection of human (or other animal) biology; as you do an excellent job of demonstrating it as exactly that bit of evidence that can't be easily contradicted - without ID propenents having to admit their God is not a perfect one, which I doubt they're willing to do.

You'd think if they wanted to prove a point they would be just as eager to do their research.

[bobbybee]

You said it. The final line of this article sums up what should be the response to every effort to introduce ID into the curriculum - that there is no theory to ID! Make the creationists build a theory which can stand up to a thousandth of the scrutiny that evolution has seen, and then we can talk turkey. Until then, teach your creationism at home, along with the flat earth etc.

[LorinM]

That logic is ridiculous. Virtually all religions acknolwedge the fallibility of humans.

Not that I am an ID proponent, but you cannot argue ontology through this kind of "evidence." Your argument has a plethora of unstated and unsupportable assumptions. For example, why would a "perfect God" feel the need to create another perfect being? And if God did create a perfect being, then what else would there be to walk the earth? As Stephen Jay Gould noted in one of his last books, the quality of an ecological system is measured by it's variability, not it's uniformity.

The most accomplished scientist that ever walked the earth was undoubtedly Isaac Newton. He was also a devoted Christian. Whereever you place Albert Einstein in that crew, he was also a man of some faith. Lesser scientist should not presume to tread where these greats would not.

[ManhattanMC]

Lorin-

"...The most accomplished scientist that ever walked the earth was undoubtedly Isaac Newton. He was also a devoted Christian. Whereever you place Albert Einstein in that crew, he was also a man of some faith. Lesser scientist should not presume to tread where these greats would not."

Newton was also an astrologer, alchemist and numerologist who would have been burned if he had advocated atheism.
Einstein was not a man of faith-he did not believe in any kind of personal 'god'.

In any case-this is argumentatum verecundium.

[dadw5boys]

of course human create the religion !

as we know the perfectionist in our society are usually nut balls.

[sociocanuck]

It's not that ridiculous. You assumed the wrong thing about my response: that I was arguing that perfection in creation would be the only way to prove his hand in the design process.

I guess I used a slightly misguided term - imperfection - and that allowed the attack. So did the article. maybe it should be amended to "what was as close to perfect under the circumstances at one stage in evolution in one habitat at one time in history with one climate, but not so perfect with just a little deviation from that time/place/climate, and so on..."

Under those circumtances it becomes much harder to deny natural selection with a bunch of hand-waving and claims that God did it, and God is always doing it. Because natural selection makes every bit as much sense as the whole mystical approach, and even more so in light of evidence that goes right down to the molecular level that shows direct correlation between changes in habitat (in generational time) and physiology.

[dana94591]

Come on! The biggest problem with humans is that they don't use what GOD gave them: a brain!!! It's like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. He wanted a brain so that he could think deep thoughts. Many humans don't know HOW to think anything deeper than where the next stupid trend it coming from. The many so-called educated leaders prey on this inability to rationally think about and analyze what is happening. Maybe I am cynical. But the nitwits with limited education and no real development of their cognitive abilities are Joe Six-Pack and Molly Muddleheads of the world clearly dominate the world. Unintelligent design should not be given credence in an educational setting. It should be in place where discourse can be conducted to examine it not in a place where there are vulnerable minds. That is why Madrasas (wrong spelling, I know) are so wrong. Teaching prejudice and hatred to vulnerable children who know nothing better is cruel!!

[paixa3]

Bravo for the good poste. Actually, human beings have been VERY INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. However, not all intelligence is EQUAL and NOT many human beings use more than 5% of their thinking abilities.

Nealy ALL of us have barriers of the mind. That is difficult to overcome.

[wishiknew]

And why is it again that people who wish to brainwash - oops, I mean expose their kids to explanations contrary to evolution can't satisfy that need in ummm... SUNDAY SCHOOL?

[TRYKER]

This human machine that has to eat 3 times a day is too inefficient. Even if we aren't running 60 MPH and burning fuel at a fast rate, we still have to eat. It would be great to only have to cook and eat once a day.
I like your idea of having another spine or two, almost all of us have our one and only in bad shape when we're only half-way through.
The Creationists just won't give up trying to corrupt our school children on their dumbing down of America. Why aren't their tax exempt churches enough for them?
Maybe we should threaten their tax exemption every time they try pushing this in our schools.

[sdskelton03]

We weren't designed to eat three meals a day either. Meals is part of the reason we have become so fat.

We were designed to eat 6-9 times a day. Remember, for many more years than we have been urban, we were nomadic foragers.

[bgregs]

Actually, we have one of the higher metabolisms out there in the animal kingdom, due to the large energy requirements of the brain, but we aren't designed to eat 3 times a day, we are designed to eat whatever we can find, whenever we can find it.

[Kassandra]

The biggest problem with the design of humans is that we try to use the mind more than we use the heart.
We rely far too much on our thoughts and they can really lead us astray if, at the same time, we are not paying attention with our entire being to the signals which alert us to danger or opportunity. Most people don't even believe we humans have instincts...we're above all that. Bull! We have plenty of instincts, but religion has urged us with dogma to suppress them.

If we were Really smart, we'd be in a BIG, TEARING hurry to bring women back into society with as many or more privileges and duties as men. Then, maybe we'd start to stop these endless wars which have plagued us since the desert religions came out of the mid-east and started slaughtering anyone who didn't agree with them. Then, maybe we could use "feminine intuition" to help us head off damage to the planet and live within our means as a species instead of sucking up everything in sight and leaving nothing for future generations or other living things which have as much right to be as we do ( maybe more)

As it is, we may as well be a baboon troop with the alpha males running it with slightly larger brains than the chimpanzee

[MinasTirith]

I agree with your post, Kassandra, if we take the concept of the 'Heart' as a separate entity from that of our 'Thoughts'.

Strictly speaking, however, our 'hearts' are part and parcel of our 'thoughts' on a given subject... The heart itself does not 'think', of course. Those thoughts are simply the thoughts we have that are not aimed at solving problems, which we humans tend to attempt to do at every turn, even when there is insufficient data to do so.

I believe that we as a species behave more like a virus than any mammal on the planet. We move from place to place, consuming our resources, using up what was alive for our own selfish gains, before moving on to a new 'host' location, to spread yet again.

And finally, you are correct again in stating that we humans have instincts. We have simply allowed them to fall prey to those who believe that behaving instinctively somehow lowers us to our animal roots.

But who truly is more advanced? The average 'Cave Man' who spent less than 20 hours per week actually 'working' to feed and clothe their families, or we more 'modern' humans, who spend over 50 hours a week in most cases, and still have no time to do anything due to being lead to believe we can 'work in more places'.

I don't believe we were intelligently designed. Though I do think we may have been intelligently evolved.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

I'm not going to argue the clear fallacies in your post but offer a couple points of fact to consider though you do raise some points that I consider interesting.

Humans do not behave like viruses. This is a misbegotten, pathetic analogy that displays a complete and utter lack of understanding of mammalian species population cycles and the reasons behind them.

Evolution is not something to which you can apply humanistic qualities. It simply happens.

[shades3]

Why do we have such trouble saying that we really do not know the origins of life, whether so-called intelligent design or evolution is the answer.
It is a standing joke that the three words men, and to be fair women too, have trouble saying is I DO NOT KNOW.
To teach either explanation as nothing other than theoretical at this point, despite the logic of evolution, is where we are at this point.
One thing though is that logic certainly does not support the magical, SHAZAM!! theory that one day there was nothing and seven days later......................................there it all was.
If people want to believe that, that is their privilege. But, it hardly passes the smell test.
Bottom line: WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE BEGINNING OF LIFE WAS. But, evolution makes more sense than the SHAZAM theory.

[Nommo]

That would be "I don't know". You could say "I doesn't know", too and get it in 3 words, but I do not know is four words. That is, of course, if "I" doesn't count. And can't add, either!

[HappyHumanist]

Evolution is not an explaination of the Beginning Of Life. Evolutionary theory is mute on this point. Evolution explains how life, once it arrived, changed over time from proteins, etc (I'm not a biologist) to whales and people.

This is a logical fallacy--and a tactic of the IDers. (confusing origin of life with decent with modification) Evolution explains the development and adaptation of life. It does it very well. It isn't a guess. Evol is backed up by a century of data. ID is only a theory without any data supporting it. It is creationism (shazam!) prettied up for the masses.

[bgregs]

The difference is that in the case of scientifically proposed evolution, there is no origin given. Evolution simply states that once life arrived, this is the general path that it took.

By contrast, ID teaches that there must be a designer since life itself is so complex that it could NEVER form on it's own, and therefore attempts to answer the origin question!

[Mike789]

Maybe it was made to be improved upon. You've got nothing better to do but spin around proton in a time suspended dimension. Okay, (The Rational Force in the Universe. I won't say G_d), simply hands you the finished product with no avenues of pursuit other than what was forordained.. All nice and neat, tied with a bow. Or, the template may have considered human dignity.