Sunday, January 01, 2012

BEAR 3.5 - Daniel Dennett on dysteleological arguments

(To BEAR 3)

There is simply no denying the breathtaking brilliance of the designs to be found in nature. Time and again, biologists baffled by some apparently futile of maladroit bit of bad design in nature have eventually come to see that they have underestimated the ingenuity, the sheer brilliance, the depth of insight to be discovered in one of Mother Nature's creations.
Dennett, Daniel. Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Simon and Schuster, 1995. Print.

Joe Holman:
our token Christian debater... made the remark that God wasn’t responsible for making bad human bodies because he only “made” Adam and Eve in a perfect state. I love it when Christians make this statement. It’s the ultimate pass-off for the poor design of our bodies. Adam and Eve were perfect. The rest of us just weren’t fortunate enough to be Adam or Eve.


13 comments:

zilch said...

I don't see any conflict here, rho. A design can be brilliant and defective at the same time, unless you subscribe to some sort of dualism which does not allow any non-absolute judgments.

Rhology said...

Most of the time, atheists use verbiage like "bad" or "crappy" or "^&*^*&%^ty" when referring to the design.
Seems to me the conflict stands. You're softening up the language that is usually used, from "&^(*&^&*(^ty" to "defective".

zilch said...

The conflict is merely invoked by your mindset, rho. It's not surprising at all to a student of evolution that the world is full of examples of both breathtaking, and not completely understood masterpieces of engineering, and mindboggling stupidity, which is explained by Mother Evolution's utter lack of foresight- a lack she made up in us animals, at least to some extent.

Rhology said...

How do you know the designs are stupid? How do you know that they are not merely misunderstood?

zilch said...

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is stupid, and it's well understood why it's stupid- it evolved in fish, where its little detour around the aorta didn't matter, and evolution has no way of rerouting stuff like that, the way a human engineer could and would. Saying that it's "merely misunderstood" is unanswerable, because we can wait til the cows come home and you can still cry "misunderstood", no matter how apparent its stupidity.

Rhology said...

Unless you misunderstood the brilliance of it.

It sounds like you have an emotional reaction to the laryngeal nerve's routing but no solid reason to think it's stupid. And honestly, how could you? Do you even close to 1% of all there is to know?

This leaves the atheist in a tough spot.

River Sprite Worshiper said...

"How do you know the designs are stupid? How do you know that they are not merely misunderstood?"

What if an alternation to the design increases survival, prolongs life, etc.?

My candidate for sub-optimal designe is external testicles. Ouch!

Rhology said...

What if NOT prolonging life, etc, is itself brilliant? How would you know?

How do you know internal testicles would be better? When's the last time you designed a human prototype with internal?

Seems to me Dennett would say that external ones are brilliant.

zilch said...

It sounds like you have an emotional reaction to the laryngeal nerve's routing but no solid reason to think it's stupid. And honestly, how could you?

Er, no, it's not "emotional" to point out stupid design, is it? I come from a family of engineers- pointing out stupid design is good engineering, nothing more. My solid reason for thinking it's stupid is that the nerve makes an obviously needless detour that makes it longer and slower. Sure, it's not 2+2=4 "solid", but it's as solid as we're likely to get in this uncertain universe. And it's not the only example- our blind spot is another stupid design, perfectly explainable by evolution, not really what one would expect from an omniscient Designer. What are your criteria for "stupid design"? Or is it all good by definition?

River Sprite Worshiper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
River Sprite Worshiper said...

“What if NOT prolonging life, etc, is itself brilliant? How would you know?”

Ok, so, how would you define or recognize good biological design or design in a biological entity? Didn’t the world begin with biological organisms that never died, that is, biological designs that always prolonged life? Wasn’t this “good”? So, why would NOT prolonging life be considered “brilliant”?

Isn’t it a fundamental part of the argument from design that we can recognize design in biological organisms because such designs sustain life? Life is the trait that distinguishes a biological design or “machine” from things that are not “designed” or not alive. In arguing for a need for an “intelligent designer”, advocates constantly point to the fact that sustaining or prolonging “life” is difficult thing to do and that it requires complex and designed entities to pull off.

NOT prolonging life is NOT brilliant, NOT difficult to do, and it certainly does NOT need an explanation, whether that explanation is God or evolution.

At a minimum, if there is any function at all for biological “design”, then that function is to sustain life. So, if the design fails to sustain life, it must be sub-optimal in some way. If we can alter the design to prolong life, if there is room for improvement, then the initial design was sub-optimal.


“How do you know internal testicles would be better? When's the last time you designed a human prototype with internal?”

Obviously, this issue isn’t about what humans can or cannot design, so your comment is a red herring.
You think that humans (and other creatures) were designed by God, so this is about what a perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer could design. Do you think that God is incapable of designing animals with internal testicles? Why put testicles in such a vulnerable location? Why sooooo much pain?

“Seems to me Dennett would say that external ones are brilliant.”

Why would you conclude this? Have you asked him? Seems to me that you shouldn’t put words in Dennett’s mouth.

Rhology said...

zilch,
no, it's not "emotional" to point out stupid design, is it?

Yes, it is. You don't have any way to know whether there is a grander, less-recognisable purpose for the way that X was designed than what you can discern. You just know that you don't like it, that you wouldn't've done it that way. But so what?



I come from a family of engineers- pointing out stupid design is good engineering, nothing more

But you know the purpose of the designer of engineering projects.



My solid reason for thinking it's stupid is that the nerve makes an obviously needless detour that makes it longer and slower.

Now make the argument that longer and slower necessarily equals bad design.



Sure, it's not 2+2=4 "solid", but it's as solid as we're likely to get in this uncertain universe

You seem confused. First you tell me that 2+2=4 is solid but that the universe is uncertain. Which is it?



our blind spot is another stupid design, perfectly explainable by evolution, not really what one would expect from an omniscient Designer.

I'm disappointed that you seem not to have learned much of anything in the years you've been commenting here. You haven't learned to improve your lousy arguments.
Did you forget the Fall of man?
Do you know the purpose of God in creating the blind spot (if, arguendo, He created it)? If you don't, how can you know whether it's bad design?



What are your criteria for "stupid design"? Or is it all good by definition?

Since I lack the intellectual arrogance with which atheists are endowed by virtue of their position, I make no statement either way. I am simply demanding that you provide reasons to think you know what you're talking about. So far, nope.

Rhology said...

River Sprite Worshiper,
how would you define or recognize good biological design or design in a biological entity?

GOOD design? I'm not sure I could make that judgment, honestly.
As for recognising ANY design, there are very long books on the topic.



Didn’t the world begin with biological organisms that never died, that is, biological designs that always prolonged life?

Since death didn't exist, I don't see a reason to think this is true.



So, why would NOT prolonging life be considered “brilliant”?

B/c now death has entered into the world, and organisms die now.
And I didn't say that not prolonging life is brilliant.




Isn’t it a fundamental part of the argument from design that we can recognize design in biological organisms because such designs sustain life?

No; rather it's because we recognise patterns of design through irreducible complexity and specified complexity. Read Dembski.



Life is the trait that distinguishes a biological design or “machine” from things that are not “designed” or not alive.

This statement merely begs the question at hand.



if the design fails to sustain life, it must be sub-optimal in some way.

You haven't proved this. You've merely asserted it.
Also, you haven't taken the fall into account. Is there no doctrine of the fall in river sprite-ology?
BTW, how did life come about in river sprite-ology? What is the name of your favored sprite? How do you know it?


Obviously, this issue isn’t about what humans can or cannot design, so your comment is a red herring.

You may have missed the fact that these are humans commenting on the blog here and complaining about how God did it.



You think that humans (and other creatures) were designed by God, so this is about what a perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer could design

And the reasons for which He did it. You keep forgetting that part.



Why put testicles in such a vulnerable location? Why sooooo much pain?

Pain is a consequence of the fall. See how nice it would be if you'd actually take ALL of Christianity into account when making your ill-founded critiques? It would save us all a lot of breath/typing.



Why would you conclude this?

B/c of what he said in his book. Maybe you should read the post again.