Skip to main content

See also:

Perceived design flaws

looks beautiful to me
looks beautiful to me
courtesy of Wikipedia Commons

The suggestion that creationism could be considered a viable alternative to evolution theory is often greeted with a reaction similar to the speaker having admitted to a predilection for pedophilia. In other words, creationists are often treated as if they have a severely deranged mind or wish to spread a communicable disease.

Change the topic of discussion to intelligent design and characterizations are soon made to describe the designer as unintelligent. The temerity of this suggestion is truly remarkable, especially considering how humans have failed to come remotely close to replicating the sort of intricacies we observe in nature, such as the bat -- the kind that eats insects, of course.

The rationale for this remarkable conclusion is that living organisms have perceived design flaws, such as the vas deferens "detour" over the ureter before connecting the testicles to the penis. Biologists have also said that our eyes are poorly designed and our “giant” human brains put undue stress on our spine, hips, and knees because it was never intended that we should walk upright.

Many people believe we are nothing more than hairless apes, freaks of nature.

The incompatibility of human design for walking upright is especially true if we carry excess weight on our bodies and don’t get enough exercise. But most “experts” would probably agree to say we are not designed for upright locomotion. This presumes at least three things:

1. Things are always exactly as they appear.

2. A perfect, supernatural Creator would create perfect, eternal creatures.

3. No alternate explanation or reason for any perceived “imperfections” could logically exist.

We know the first point simply isn't true. Otherwise, Pen and Teller would not be successful at creating illusions.

The problem of assuming design of any living organism has ever been intended to last for eternity is that the Bible flatly states otherwise. Anything beyond the age of seventy surpasses the normal expected human life span.

The rationale behind assuming flaws exist in basic design is quite interesting, considering no human has ever come close to creating something as sophisticated as a human being from scratch. Not even a rat, for that matter -- or an eye, spine, central nervous system, immune system…surely, you get my drift.

Yet humans will quickly pass judgment on what we cannot accomplish ourselves.

Whenever we do manage to muddle through and get something working, it is invariably modeled on an idea stolen from nature. For example, humans observed bats and whales operating to learn how to design sonar. Our computers are modeled on the human brain.

The basic underlying assumption that ideal design would include provisions of immortality presumes the intent of the designer. Moreover, any flaws or imperfections in the DNA “blueprint” produced by sexual reproduction from two very similar parents that lead to birth defects are blamed on a imperfect design.

If humanity is indeed the product of blind luck and natural selection, then the obvious answer to the existential question: what is my purpose in life? is nothing.

If that is what you choose to believe, suit yourself. But in addition to believing in your incredible blind luck, you’re turning a blind eye to actual evidence readily available for consideration…evidence found in medical records of near death experiences.

The human brain is an organic computer, complete with little data stacks for memory storage called microtubules. The device that humans built called a computer simply pales in comparison. Manmade computers have not mastered neural networking, and nothing comes for free with the operating system that is remotely comparable to our subconscious mind.

Pacemakers and artificial hearts are great, but in no way are they better than the real McCoy.

So, in my opinion, it requires a significant amount of hubris to describe a living organism as being poorly designed when we cannot come close to creating something nearly as good. To suggest humans might do better is patently absurd.

Comments