How can we reconcile the argument of intelligent design with supposed design flaws?

[Ruqx]

If…well, I could do this all day. But I can’t really see the point in making a list with hundreds of advantages when 2 or 3 will suffice.

For sure… but this looks like a great game.

In Northern Italy there is a village with people (of an extended family) whose body contains a lethal amount of cholesterol, and yet … they are perfectly healthy due to their particular genetic makeup. The medical science tries to p(name removed by moderator)oint which genes are responsibly for this “anomaly”. If and when they will be successful, the scourge of cardiovascular problems will be solved. No more heart disease, which is the number one killer today… An “intelligent” designer could have instantiated the proper genetics, if it wanted to.

What about those people whose denture is impervious to cavities… no dental problems? It would have been a great improvement over the current state of affairs.

About 95% of the microbes are either beneficial of neutral to the hosts, only 5% is detrimental. It would be more than “good” not to implement the detrimental ones…

The possibilities are simply endless - IF there would be an “intelligent” designer.

 

[Cheiron]

Please give an example of an advantage without a corresponding disadvantage and explain how we can have everything for nothing.

Bradski and Ruqx already mentioned some examples in this thread. Personally, I would point to my autoimmune disease and say that the advantage of an immune system did not have to include the disadvantage of being attacked by it. In fact, there are lots of people who go through life without experiencing the problems of an autoimmune disease.

Since we don’t know what the best possible universe is you are not justified in criticising this universe or suggesting He thought this universe was good enough and simply couldn’t be bothered to create something better. Ignorance implies lack of evidence for incompetence, negligence or indifference.

I don’t need to know other universes to think of various ways in which this universe could be improved and to criticize the fact that those improvements aren’t here. I don’t know what the best possible universe is, but I do know that this one could use some improvement.

Your objection implies that the drawbacks of life outweigh its benefits. Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life hadn’t existed on this planet?
If not why not?

I’m not familiar with Schopenhauer, so I don’t know his reasons for saying that. I do think it would be better if some forms of life, like mosquito’s and spiders, did not exist. Personally, I quite like the fact that I exist.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t doubt for a second that an intelligent designer makes mistakes, although that does make me wonder about the extent of his intelligence. He’s still responsible for the mistakes he makes. And I’d like to have a word with him about that.

Well, first you have to believe in the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

 

[tonyrey]

Please give an example of an advantage without a corresponding disadvantage and explain how we can have everything for nothing.

You need to explain the precise mechanism by which it could be ensured that an immune system always functions perfectly for everyone in every environment regardless of every other factor which could cause it to malfunction.

Since we don’t know what the best possible universe is you are not justified in criticising this universe or suggesting He thought this universe was good enough and simply couldn’t be bothered to create something better. Ignorance implies lack of evidence for incompetence, negligence or indifference.

I don’t need to know other universes to think of various ways in which this universe could be improved and to criticize the fact that those improvements aren’t here. I don’t know what the best possible universe is, but I do know that this one could use some improvement.

It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **they could be incorporated into an immensely complex system is rather more difficult. You can criticise the fact they aren’t here to your heart’s content but you have yet to present a feasible blueprint of a superior universe with a detailed account of its development.

Your objection implies that the drawbacks of life outweigh its benefits. Do you agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life hadn’t existed on this planet? If not why not?

I'm not familiar with Schopenhauer, so I don't know his reasons  for saying that. I do think it would be better if some forms of life,  like mosquito's and spiders, did not exist. Personally, I quite like the  fact that I exist.

“quite like” is a gross understatement. If you were faced with the choice of whether to exist or not you wouldn’t be quite so diffident… You don’t seem to agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life hadn’t existed on this planet.

 

[rossum]

You need to explain the precise mechanism by which it could be ensured that an immune system always functions perfectly for everyone in every environment regardless of every other factor which could cause it to malfunction.

No I do not. I merely need to point out that an omnipotent, omniscient designer could design such a system. All possible functions in all possible environments would have been perfectly foreseen (omniscience) and a system created which was able to function correctly in all those various circumstances created (omnipotence). The fact that such a system was not designed implies that either or both of the assumptions of omnipotence or omniscience was incorrect.

It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **they could be incorporated into an immensely complex system is rather more difficult.

But not very difficult for an omnipotent, omniscient designer. All you are doing here is drawing attention to the differences between the real system, as seen in the world we have, and an ideal system designed by some omnimax designer. The real system we observe tends to indicate that the designer was not omnimax.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

For sure… but this looks like a great game.

In Northern Italy there is a village with people (of an extended family) whose body contains a lethal amount of cholesterol, and yet … they are perfectly healthy due to their particular genetic makeup. The medical science tries to p(name removed by moderator)oint which genes are responsibly for this “anomaly”. If and when they will be successful, the scourge of cardiovascular problems will be solved. No more heart disease, which is the number one killer today… An “intelligent” designer could have instantiated the proper genetics, if it wanted to.

What about those people whose denture is impervious to cavities… no dental problems? It would have been a great improvement over the current state of affairs.

About 95% of the microbes are either beneficial of neutral to the hosts, only 5% is detrimental. It would be more than “good” not to implement the detrimental ones…

The possibilities are simply endless - IF there would be an “intelligent” designer.

To indulge in wishful thinking is child’s play but to explain the precise mechanism by which** all **such anomalies could be prevented is far more difficult and to incorporate them into the process of biological development is probably impossible without creating other problems. Human “improvements” to the biosphere have had a devastating effect, notably the diseases of civilisation and the prospect of the extinction of life on this planet…

 

[Bradski]

It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **they could be incorporated into an immensely complex system is rather more difficult. You can criticise the fact they aren’t here to your heart’s content but you have yet to present a feasible blueprint of a superior universe with a detailed account of its development.

Why do you keep on insisting this? We are not building the universe. That’s done by an omnipotent God. You DO know what omnipotent means?

As has been pointed out to you very many times, it is ridiculously easy to suggest ways in which the world could be that much better and it is equally ridiculous for you to insist that we need to tell God how to do it.

You have painted yourself into a corner. It might be a good idea to use the last argument you have available: we just don’t know why these things are as they are.

Trying to justify them and even more fatuously, insisting we give you a blueprint for fixing them, isn’t getting you anywhere.

 

[Aloysium]

To indulge in wishful thinking is child’s play but to explain the precise mechanism by which** all **such anomalies could be prevented is far more difficult and to incorporate them into the process of biological development is probably impossible without creating other problems. Human “improvements” to the biosphere have had a devastating effect, notably the diseases of civilisation and the prospect of the extinction of life on this planet…

That approach also misses the whole point of all this, which lies in the actual seeking of cures, the caring for one another; we are here to love our neighbour. There exists an ultimate Cure, that heals all that really ails us - He who has vanquished death. In seeking transient and illusory ends, at best that is what we are left with. Today we see how it has led to climate and other changes in the biosphere, as you identify. Things are as they should be in order to forge eternal beings worthy of the glory which surrounds creation, reflecting its Source. This is all about rising to challenges, commitment and courage in pursuit of the beautiful, the true and the good. The rest is chasing after fantasy.

 

[Cheiron]

Well, first you have to believe in the existence of the Intelligent Designer.

God’s existence does not depend on whether I believe in Him or not. If He does exist, I will probably talk to Him anyway on Judgement Day.

You need to explain the precise mechanism by which it could be ensured that an immune system always functions perfectly for everyone in every environment regardless of every other factor which could cause it to malfunction.

As others have said: we don’t have to explain that mechanism in order to explain that things could be better. Whatever the method of improvement is, I’m sure it’s no problem for an omnipotent God.

 It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **they could be incorporated into an immensely complex system is rather more difficult. You can criticise the fact they aren't here to your heart's content but you have yet to present a feasible blueprint of a superior universe with a detailed account of its development.

God could have designed a world without smallpox. He didn’t. He could have saved a lot of humans from the terrible disease He inflicted upon them (He is the Designer) by giving everyone resistance to smallpox. He didn’t. Humans have suffered from that terrible disease until the late 1970’s, when it was completely eradicated - by humans alone.

You said earlier that every advantage needs to have a corresponding disadvantage. What kind of advantage have we lost by eradicating smallpox?

“quite like” is a gross understatement. If you were faced with the choice of whether to exist or not you wouldn’t be quite so diffident… You don’t seem to agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life hadn’t existed on this planet.

If I’m faced by this choice, then, by definition, I already exist.

 

[cfauster]

Thomas Schartl’s article “The Challenge of Theodicy and the Divine Access to the Universe” is likely not available to most people.

I will share something relevant from it:

Let us delineate the different positions, and their animosities, by a brief overview:

1. Evil is a necessarily possible part of God’s enabling human freedom. Although the almighty God could intervene into the chain of events within the world, he has sufficient reason not to do so. To secure human freedom is the highest value God is committed to regarding his creation.
2. Evil is a consequence of the completely free development of creative and conscious life in the universe. Although God is the perfect good, he is not omnipotent in the common sense of omnipotence. His power is not a compelling force but a force of love and persuasion. So God could not intervene into the course of universe’s development without destroying the “evolution” of creative freedom, autonomy, and love which alone are the adequate representations of transcendence in the universe of finite entities.
3. Every attempt to solve the problem of theodicy neglects the eminent dangers of theological category-mistakes: God cannot be treated, measured, and conceptualized like any finite entity. To respect God as an absolute (and, of course, holy) Otherness reminds us to be cautious with the standards of human reason. And so any theological result which is willing to treat evil as an entire mystery does not succeed in delivering a suitable and proper argument against theism.

Of course, the article goes into lots of detail and is pretty high-brow. But his simple listing of the three positions one finds in contemporary discussions might be of some use.

 

[tonyrey]

It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **

Sarcasm does not constitute a rational argument…

You have painted yourself into a corner. It might be a good idea to use the last argument you have available: we just don’t know why these things are as they are.

It is you who have painted yourself into a corner from which you have no escape because you claim to be an atheist which implies that you know God doesn’t exist and there is no reason why anything exists.

Trying to justify them and even more fatuously, insisting we give you a blueprint for fixing them, isn’t getting you anywhere.

You have already supplied the blueprint with your self-destructive dogma that nothing makes sense because in your view everything exists by chance - including your own argument. In other words absurdity is the name of the game…

 

[tonyrey]

That approach also misses the whole point of all this, which lies in the actual seeking of cures, the caring for one another; we are here to love our neighbour. There exists an ultimate Cure, that heals all that really ails us - He who has vanquished death. In seeking transient and illusory ends, at best that is what we are left with. Today we see how it has led to climate and other changes in the biosphere, as you identify. Things are as they should be in order to forge eternal beings worthy of the glory which surrounds creation, reflecting its Source. This is all about rising to challenges, commitment and courage in pursuit of the beautiful, the true and the good. The rest is chasing after fantasy.

In the atheist’s uncaring ocean of absurdity!

 

[tonyrey]

You need to explain the precise mechanism by which it could be ensured that an immune system always

You are **assuming **things could be better and fulfil the same purposes as this universe. Omnipotence doesn’t entail absurdity but consistency.

It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **

they could be incorporated into an immensely complex system is rather more difficult. You can criticise the fact they aren’t here to your heart’s content but you have yet to present a feasible blueprint of a superior universe with a detailed account of its development. God could have designed a world without smallpox. He didn’t. He could have saved a lot of humans from the terrible disease He inflicted upon them (He is the Designer) by giving everyone resistance to smallpox. He didn’t. Humans have suffered from that terrible disease until the late 1970’s, when it was completely eradicated - by humans alone.

That is an excellent example of a piecemeal improvement for which you have given no indication whatsoever of how i**t could have been implemented **in the process of development.

You said earlier that every advantage needs to have a corresponding disadvantage. What kind of advantage have we lost by eradicating smallpox?

The eradication of smallpox presupposes that it was not inevitable in the first place, an assertion that needs justification given the existing laws of nature. Nor is it a positive advantage like wealth, power, fame, intelligence, beauty or sensitivity…

“quite like” is a gross understatement. If you were faced with the choice of whether to exist or not you wouldn’t be quite so diffident… You don’t seem to agree with Schopenhauer that it would be better if life hadn’t existed on this planet.

If I’m faced by this choice, then, by definition, I already exist. God’s existence does not depend on whether I believe in Him or not. If He does exist, I will probably talk to Him anyway on Judgement Day.

There is such a thing as a thought experiment which helps us to see reality in perspective. Assuming we could choose whether or not to exist what would you have chosen - and why or why not?

 

[tonyrey]

You need to explain the precise mechanism by which it could be ensured that an immune system always

On the contrary you need to explain **how such infallible functions could have been implemented in the course of development **without interfering with the laws of nature and disrupting the order and regularity of events in the universe.

It is very easy to suggest piecemeal improvements but to explain **how **

they could be incorporated into an immensely complex system is rather more difficult. But not very difficult for an omnipotent, omniscient designer. All you are doing here is drawing attention to the differences between the real system, as seen in the world we have, and an ideal system designed by some omnimax designer. The real system we observe tends to indicate that the designer was not omnimax.

Not at all. You are judging by vague impressions rather than precise facts. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity but consistency. There is no point in creating the laws of nature if they are going to be continually suspended to cater for particular contingencies. Misfortunes are inevitable in an immensely complex universe in which countless individuals are pursuing different goals. Sooner or later there is bound to be conflict and interference. The “ideal system” is a fantasy unless it is supported by a feasible blueprint, a feat no one has ever achieved…

 

[Bradski]

It is you who have painted yourself into a corner from which you have no escape because you claim to be an atheist which implies that you know God doesn’t exist…

I know no such thing as you are fully aware. You are deflecting. This incorrect comment has nothing to do with my post whatsoever.

You have already supplied the blueprint with your self-destructive dogma that nothing makes sense because in your view everything exists by chance - including your own argument. In other words absurdity is the name of the game…

Again, there is no answer here. Just deflection. Anyone and everyone can easily spell out for you a myriad of ways in which the world could be a better place. From simple and trite dental problems to major diseases. You have been given more answers than you need and certainly more than you wanted and now you deny it because we haven’t given the instructions to an omnipotent God as to how to accomplish these things. An omnipotent God! He can create existence itself but has no idea how to prevent caries?

As if He wouldn’t know. As if it might not have occurred to Him. As if it might be in the too hard basket. As if He couldn’t do it on his own. As if he needs a little help from us. As if he needs some guidance. As if he needs that blueprint you keep on and on about.

You sell God short. That must be the fact of the matter because you insist that He couldn’t do it (unless we tell Him how!).

I said earlier you only had one option open to you. And that was to man up and admit that you haven’t the foggiest idea why there is pain and misery and minor problems and toothache and bad backs and smallpox.

But there is another, of course. Which is to suggest that all these things are there for us to overcome. A little pain and misery will make us better people. Overcoming smallpox is a human achievement! We couldn’t have done it if it hadn’t existed! Thanks be to God for the opportunity! And, hey, all those millions who dies in pain, well they were going to die anyway, so no big deal. Let’s all take the Mother Theresa’s viewpoint: ‘pain, sorrow, suffering, they are the kiss of Jesus’.

Your kid has cancer? You lucky sod. She has been kissed by Jesus! You must be so pleased. Me, I just need a filling.

If I were you, I’d pick the first option. It is clear from your posts that it sums up your position. And no sarcasm intended there, Tony.

 

[GEddie]

Bradski, amigo,

I don’t have answers to your points, as I am a nonphilosopher and proud of it.

But I feel your pain and hope that you can find peace of mind.

ICXC NIKA

 

[rossum]

On the contrary you need to explain **how such infallible functions could have been implemented in the course of development **without interfering with the laws of nature and disrupting the order and regularity of events in the universe.

The laws of nature you refer to were themselves created by that omnimax being, with perfect foresight. Hence any limitations on what that omnimax being can do, if any, are self-imposed and still the responsibility of the same designer. My original argument from perfect foresight and perfect construction still applies, but now also included the laws of nature. I assume that you are not proposing a multi-designer scenario, where one designer is responsible for the laws of nature and a different designer is responsible for living organisms.

Not at all. You are judging by vague impressions rather than precise facts. Omnipotence does not entail absurdity but consistency. There is no point in creating the laws of nature if they are going to be continually suspended to cater for particular contingencies.

The laws, in combination with the immune system, could have been created to allow for all contingencies. If the same designer is responsible for both, then the laws could be designed to cover many general contingencies, with immune systems designed to cover all remaining specific contingencies. An omnimax designer could easily specifically tailor the immune system of every newborn to cover all the diseases that particular organism would encounter in its lifetime. We already see that some organisms have pre-immunity to particular pathogens, while others do not. That pre-immunity could easily be spread by design into all organisms that would need it in future.

For example, some people have a genetic immunity to HIV. An omnimax designer could have foreseen every person who would come in contact with HIV and made the necessary changes to their DNA so they did not become infected.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

. An omnimax designer could easily specifically tailor the immune system of every newborn to cover all the diseases that particular organism would encounter in its lifetime. We already see that some organisms have pre-immunity to particular pathogens, while others do not. That pre-immunity could easily be spread by design into all organisms that would need it in future.

For example, some people have a genetic immunity to HIV. An omnimax designer could have foreseen every person who would come in contact with HIV and made the necessary changes to their DNA so they did not become infected.

rossum

So far as AIDS goes, God could have designed us so that nobody could get it.

But that would go against the omnimax designer’s moral law that actions have consequences.

We are free to choose or refuse behavior that leads to AIDS.

Some choose to refuse. Some don’t. The ones who don’t are proud of their stupidity.

They even march in costumes to celebrate their stupidity.

I suppose you would lay that also on a feeble design by the omnimax designer?

 

[rossum]

We are free to choose or refuse behavior that leads to AIDS.

No we are not. HIV infection can be due to having haemophilia, needing a blood transfusion, rape, the behaviour of a married partner or something else outside one’s control. If HIV is a punishment, then it is a very badly designed punishment, unless the JWs are right and people are being punished for having blood transfusions.

An omnimax designer would have made a better job of things. As it stands, HIV is at best a very sloppily designed punishment. You do realise that worldwide the majority of HIV carriers are heterosexual?

I suppose you would lay that also on a feeble design by the omnimax designer?

In the case of HIV, yes. If it is, as you claim, a punishment, then it affects a lot of people who do not deserve punishment. Why punish an HIV infected baby for the sin of the infected rapist who fathered the child on its unwilling mother?

Feeble design indeed.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

So far as AIDS goes, God could have designed us so that nobody could get it.

But that would go against the omnimax designer’s moral law that actions have consequences.

Way to go Charles. The post most bereft of any humanity for a long while. Yes, Aids is God’s punishment for gays! Burning in hell isn’t simply good enough for them. They must suffer in this life too!

Whaddya up to this coming weekend? Making a few placards up? The pope must be so pleased having someone like you in his corner, spreading the good word.