The Lack of Design in Nature?

But if you can do better, with your own supreme intelligence, show us your stuff!

partII

More than Nuts and Bolts: Implications of "Elegant" Design.

One of the top science stories of 2001 was the sequencing of the human genome. A big surprise was the number of human genes. Scientists were expecting 100,000 or more, but the official count came in just over 30,000 - in the same ballpark as the lowly mustard weed, and less than twice as many genes as the primitive roundworm. The editors of Popular Science ("Human Genome: Less Code, More Complexity," Jan. 2002, p. 62) explain the implications:

That revelation injured the vanity of geneticists, who quickly rallied to the defense of human complexity. The human genome may be relatively small, these experts acknowledged, but it is inexpressibly elegant, accomplishing far more with less. . . .

In many organisms, each gene codes for a single protein, but in human, geneticists point out, that simple one-to-one ration doesn't hold. Human genes interact with one another in a variety of intricate arrangements; as a result, a single human gene is often responsible for producing a handful of proteins or more. (emphasis mine)

The "inexpressibly elegant" genetic code of human beings, in which complex interactions between genes allows many proteins to be produced from a single gene, poses a serious problem for those who deny design. Not only is it a priori evidence of elegant design, but it poses a serious challenge for those who point to alleged design flaws in their efforts to ignore the overwhelming, prima facie evidence of design. If the design flaw you point to is truly suboptimal and contrary to what an intelligent designer would do, then how would you fix this flaw with your intelligence? Which gene or genes would you change without creating a host of worse problem? Let's consider the placement of nerves relative to the retina. Do you suppose that there is a single gene whose sole purpose is to specify whether the nerves of the retina go behind or in front of the retina, and that the random forces of nature just happened to get it wrong? Or is the placement of the retina the result of the "inexpressibly elegant" interactions of multiple genes playing multiple roles, such that changing the genes to rework the placement of nerves might lead to other worse deficiencies - perhaps a fatal weakening of the spinal column, or loss of a protein needed for the inexpressibly elegant chemistry behind hearing, or increased likelihood of retinal detachment?

So many engineers, architects, and social planners have found that making a change in one system to address a problem often leads to unexpected consequences elsewhere. Arguments about design flaws are based on ignorance, and should carry little weight unless scientists can propose intelligent improvements to the human genome that do not bring about unintended disaster.

Can there Be Limitations in Divine Design?

In response to this page, one person wrote that I was putting limitations on God's power and perhaps even degrading the miracle of the Creation by suggesting that God could not design whatever he wanted. Here is my response:

Your assumptions about my views aren't quite accurate. Regardless of God's creative abilities, there are genuine physical restraints to what can be achieved in a living organism in thus universe (and what a wonderfully optimized universe this is, in terms of the basic properties of matter). While I could discuss the many limitations arising from chemical kinetics, thermodynamics, physical properties of materials, and so forth, let me simply focus on reproduction itself.

It may be possible to draw a clever design for the human body with improved piping to avoid prostrate problems, modified head structures to reduce sinus problems and improve drainage, rearranged nerves from the retina to improve clarity of vision, modified bowels to eliminate appendix problems, etc. But it is not enough to conceive the final design. One must establish a pathway that enables that final design to be reached via a continuous process beginning with a single egg that divides, grows, and undergoes cell differentiation and subsequent growth. The constraint of achieving a given design in a process that can happen spontaneously from a single cell greatly limits the possibilities. The more I learn about the operation of DNA, of the complex interactions of genes with our body, of the mysteries of cell differentiation and human development, and of the chemistry and physics of the human body, the more amazed I become that we can even exist at all, in any form. I am stunned that it was even possible to establish multicellular life, let alone a human being. Given what I feel are the inordinate design challenges and very real limitations imposed by chemistry, physics, and other restraints, I feel it is foolish to quibble about whether the prostrate gland was properly plumbed and silly to complain that our eyes aren't as sharp as possible.

Our ignorance may limit our ability to comprehend the mastery of God's creation, but what little I do comprehend moves me to know that our lives are not mere accidents. It is precisely my scientific skepticism that forces me to reject the fantastic, even farcical notion that it could all happen by accident.

My beliefs concerning the reality of God are based on far more than mere deductions from the evidence of design in nature. One can know personally of the reality and personal nature of God - and I honestly do. He is not a distant creator, "wholly other" and removed - but is a divine parent, our Father (see, for example, the LDS Proclamation on the Family). That's where the excitement really begins - the process of knowing Him. I'm sure this sounds like a raving lunatic, but there is a reality beyond the limited scope of what is taught in school. Be skeptical - don't accept at face value what is taught and argued so dogmatically. Search, ponder, and even dare to pray. There is a universe of knowledge and wonder waiting to be explored - and it doesn't require that we go about extinguishing any species from the earth.

Conclusion

When I contemplate the universe, the nature of matter, and the presence of life and this planet, the great mystery is how it was possible at all. Given the range of properties of matter that could have occurred in the Big Bang or whatever happened at the Beginning - the balance between strong and weak nuclear forces, the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, the speed of light - I am stunned that there was a choice of values for all these and many more properties that could lead to the formation of stars and planets, the existence of the water molecule and the vast world of carbon chemistry. The most fundamental building blocks of this universe are filled with evidence of intelligent design.
Then there is the marvel of DNA, of birth and reproduction, of the mind and its ability to grasp math, music, and art, to be self-aware, to love, to weep, to strive. These are not the fruits of crass natural selection blindly churning away to select the toughest predators. The eye itself is so artistic, so fantastic in its powers and design. How was it even possible to develop a complex of genes that could give us such vision? Those who will not see the splendor of Divine Creation while they complain the "illogical" placement of nerves over the retina or other minor problems suffer from a more harmful form of blindness than any biological affliction. There is a sad ingratitude among many intellectuals, based on a profound failure to appreciate just how difficult it is to design any form of life at all.

Remember, the issue is not whether you can propose an improved structure for the eye or the prostrate gland or bone structure or anything else (anyone can do that: how about X-ray vision or bullet proof skin?), but how to modify the genes to gain a physically possible benefit - without creating a cascade of deleterious interactions of the changed genes with other genes, or of the changed proteins with other chemicals and systems, or of the changed structure with other structures and processes. Those so-called design flaws may be the result of divine optimization in light of the overwhelming constraints that the Designer must work with. But if you can do better, with your own supreme intelligence, show us your stuff!

The thing I like bes about the greate designer in the sky is the infinite amount of suffering, both by animals and by innocent children, designed into nature -- all the result, we are told of a couple of screw-ups early on. Yup, that's intelligent all right.

So what about the wings of insects and birds? They are extremely advanced and efficient. They're a quantum leap beyond any airplane wing designed by man. (If I could design a wing as advanced as a dragon fly's, I would be richer than Bill Gates.) I find it real hard to believe that is happened by random accident. There's a million more examples in nature.

Strange ...

we get a gift --- life ...

most people throw out the directions (( present too ))---

create their own design --- mess (( wrappings )) !

One philospher I know wrote ...

wouldn't it be strange if people only saw the frame and not the picture ?

YEC read later

I wish you wrote this lucidly all the time.

What might a world with no evil and no suffering be like? How would we know free will? How would we then be different from inanimate objects?

It's Talmudic that, "If I knew Him, I'd be Him."

design a wing as advanced as a dragon fly's ...

The ultimate in speed -- maneuverability !

f. did NOT////WRITE!!!! this...
copy--->PASTE!! is why lucid/legible!!
Unable/willing to make sense withWORDS of his OWN??!!>>

What might a world with no evil and no suffering be like? How would we know free will?

Apparently all these things once co-existed.

:we get a gift --- life ...

most people throw out the directions (( present too ))---

create their own design --- mess (( wrappings )) !

:

Well, at least the article you posted was written in English.

I'm not complaining about my life, thank you, but there are a lot of people in the world who do not live long enough to exercise free will. Either their suffering is meaningless because everything will get fixed up in heaven, or their suffering is meaningful and the designer is cruel.

Now there you go again!

Once. And will again by God's promise. Meanwhile, we live in the world with free will.

I do, too, but he's just quoting someone.

I have a very close friend -- family member who I started to tease ...

"stop bucking the system" (( he's been through a lot recently ))---

at a recent get together we were crashed by one of those chronic complainer (( drunk )) loser type ...

and my only remark was ---

"he wasn't even in the system" !

The Doctrine of Sin

Jesus: Political Martyr or Atoning God?

When I contemplate the universe, the nature of matter, and the presence of life and this planet, the great mystery is how it was possible at all?

How could what is not be possible?

What kind of reasoning could make someone question the possiblity of what is. What could possibly make it not possible. The most likely thing in the world is what actually is.

When I contemplate the universe, the nature of matter, and the presence of life and this planet, the great mystery is how anyone could believe that someone made it.

Hank

Designer genes?