Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From The Wall Street Journal: ‘Imperfection’ Review: Unintelligent Design

Categories
Atheism
Intelligent Design
specified complexity
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

David P. Barash writes:

‘Imperfection,” by Telmo Pievani, begins as it should, with the big bang: “In the beginning, there was imperfection. A rebellion against the established order, with no witnesses, in the heart of the darkest of nights. Something in the symmetry broke down 13.82 billion years ago.” And it ends on a suitably ambiguous note: “There is something amazing in evolution . . . which in 3.5 billion years has taken us from an amoeba to Donald Trump.”

Mr. Pievani is a professor of biology at the University of Padua. His brief and thoughtful book (translated from the Italian by Michael Gerard Kenyon) isn’t just a description of imperfection, but a paean to it. There’s plenty of description and discussion, too, as “Imperfection” takes the reader on a convincing whirlwind tour of the dangers as well as the impossibility of perfection, how imperfection is built into the nature of the universe, and into all living things—including ourselves.

Mary Poppins congratulated herself for being “practically perfect in every way,” but of course she wasn’t, if only because she bragged about it. Moreover, perfection would make evolution stop dead in its tracks. In fact, it would never have begun—natural selection needs diversity upon which to operate. And diversity ultimately arises from mutation and sexual recombination, each of which is a perfect source of imperfection.

Yet another source of imperfection, unique to Homo sapiens and well described by Mr. Pievani, is the disconnect between our rapid cultural innovation and our slow biological evolution. (Immodest note: In 1986, your current reviewer wrote “The Hare and the Tortoise,” the first book calling attention to this troublesome imbalance.) For a homey example, consider that, being primates, our Pleistocene ancestors were naturally fond of sugars, which indicate ripe fruit, and of fats, present—albeit in generally small quantities—in game. Today, our culture provides us with excessive opportunities to indulge such fondness, which we overdo, benefiting only the confectionery and meat industries, along with dentists, cardiologists and morticians.

Abraham Lincoln had a cute way of undercutting our tendency to find perfection everywhere. It’s remarkable, he once pointed out, that no matter how tall someone is, their legs are always exactly long enough to reach the ground! Ironically, fundamentalists on both extremes of the evolution divide often converge in misinterpreting perfection, creationists proclaiming that only a supreme being could have produced such superb complexity, while hyper-adaptationists emphasize the power of natural selection to achieve the same thing, promoting a “gee whiz” perspective on evolution.

Counterintuitively, it is the imperfection of the organic world that provides some of the most cogent evidence for evolution as a wholly natural phenomenon, and against special creation, or, in its barely disguised incarnation,“intelligent design theory.” And here is where “Imperfection,” the book, is especially valuable.

As Mr. Pievani emphasizes, Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design, “with their useless earlobes, their tedious wisdom teeth, . . . their vermiform intestinal appendage, their spinal curves, and their vas deferens, which carries sperm from the testicles to the penis not directly and by the shortest route but instead after going by a useless and lengthy route via the ureter . . . the remains of their ancestral quadrupedal gait, and the corresponding ills and pains, backache, sciatica, flat feet, scoliosis, and hernias.” Add the terrible structure of our knees, our lower backs, the fact that the opening of the tubes carrying food and air are so close that choking is a significant cause of mortality, the awkwardness of having our reproduction and sewerage emerging right next to each other. We are shot through with deficiencies that wouldn’t earn even a passing grade for a novice bioengineer, never mind an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

Full article at The Wall Street Journal.

So, this article continues, but let’s not overlook the grandeur of a mountain by having one’s eyes focused downward on a crack in a rock. Anyone who says, “Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design”, and can only myopically see subjectively critiqued imperfections, while not being awed by the suite of biochemical marvels that comprise the human body, is ignorant at best, and perhaps maliciously antagonistic towards God at worst.

Comments
"But even if they are all critical of both intelligent design and religion, so what?" To the Evolutionist Troll, they are the same thing. So, we get to read endless comments from pious religion-haters. Andrewasauber
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PST
@7
Ever read Evolutionist troll comments here?
I've seen some people raise criticisms of intelligent design and argue in favor of evolutionary theory, but I haven't yet seen any of them say anything critical about theology or organized religion in general. But even if they are all critical of both intelligent design and religion, so what? It's perfectly coherent that they are fundamentally confused. If they oppose intelligent design because they think that intelligent design somehow raises the likelihood of God's existence, that's clearly a logical mistake on their part and should be called out as such.PyrrhoManiac1
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PST
If anyone intelligent designed this world, it would be necessary to include doubt. Without doubt, there would be a sterile uninteresting world. Doubt would necessitate the appearance of sub-optimal entities. Actually the world as we know it would not exist without doubt. So is this the best of all possible worlds? A world of perfect imperfects. It’s amazing how the fine tuning gets overlooked so easily. Aside: ChuckDarwin endorses one aspect of ID. He points out the only evidence for Evolution is imperfection. It certainly isn’t natural selection. But Chuck fails to realize that the perfect world requires fools. In other words, Chuck is an example of perfect design. Aside2: if someone defending ID, doesn’t make a perfect comment, an anti ID person is ready to pounce on the part that isn’t seemingly perfect. That’s all they have. Aside3: ID has nothing to do with theology other than supporting various religious points of view. It’s a tool using logic and evidence. A screwdriver is a tool too and can be used for lots of end results.jerry
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PST
"I don’t see why someone who rejects intelligent design would be suspected of harboring any specific attitudes towards God." PM1, Ever read Evolutionist troll comments here? Andrewasauber
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST
Anyone who says, “Homo sapiens are marvels of unintelligent design”, and can only myopically see subjectively critiqued imperfections, while not being awed by the suite of biochemical marvels that comprise the human body, is ignorant at best, and perhaps maliciously antagonistic towards God at worst.
This looks like a false dichotomy followed by two non sequiturs. 1. This is phrased in a way as to suggest (but not assert) that if a trait is suboptimal, then the suboptimality is a "subjective criticism", but if a trait is optimal or near-optimal, then the optimality is (presumably) objectively real. I don't see what would justify this suggestion. Why wouldn't suboptimality and optimality both be objectively real? (Or both could be subjective, but let's not go there.) 2. Why would stressing the suboptimality of certain features be "maliciously antagonistic towards God" at all? I'm no expert on theology, but my understanding is that it would be open to a person of faith to say that what matters is the harmony of all of Nature taken as a whole, and that's perfectly consistent with suboptimal features in how any particular creature (or feature of that creature (ha ha)) has been designed. 3. I was under the distinct impression that intelligent design had nothing to do with theology -- indeed, that it's logically compatible with atheism. If so, then I don't see why someone who rejects intelligent design would be suspected of harboring any specific attitudes towards God. (For whatever it's worth, I'm quite critical of intelligent design and I'm not an atheist.)PyrrhoManiac1
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PST
Counterintuitively, it is the imperfection of the organic world that provides some of the most cogent evidence for evolution as a wholly natural phenomenon, and against special creation, or, in its barely disguised incarnation,“intelligent design theory.”
OUCH! And in the WSJ no less. This will have the crew at DI scrambling to battle stations. “Malicious” heretic appears to be the first salvo……chuckdarwin
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PST
I have two words for such: tradeoffs and robustness. Optimisation for a narrow set of constraints is often brittle or open to handicapping in the face of a variable environment.kairosfocus
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PST
as to: "can only myopically see subjectively critiqued imperfections, while not being awed by the suite of biochemical marvels that comprise the human body, is ignorant at best, and perhaps maliciously antagonistic towards God at worst." Indeed.
William Bialek Excerpt: A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things 'work' in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks. https://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html William Bialek is the John Archibald Wheeler/Battelle Professor in Physics, and a member of the multidisciplinary Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, at Princeton University. William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them the superb efficiency with which bacterial cells will close in on a food source; the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head; and the way a shark can find its prey by measuring micro-fluxes of electricity in the water a tremulous millionth of a volt strong — which, as Douglas Fields observed in Scientific American, is like detecting an electrical field generated by a standard AA battery “with one pole dipped in the Long Island Sound and the other pole in waters of Jacksonville, Fla.” In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html Math sheds light on how living cells 'think' - May 2, 2018 Excerpt: Dr Araujo's work has focused on the widely observed function called perfect adaptation -- the ability of a network to reset itself after it has been exposed to a new stimulus. "An example of perfect adaptation is our sense of smell," she said. "When exposed to an odour we will smell it initially but after a while it seems to us that the odour has disappeared, even though the chemical, the stimulus, is still present. "Our sense of smell has exhibited perfect adaptation. This process allows it to remain sensitive to further changes in our environment so that we can detect both very faint and very strong odours. "This kind of adaptation is essentially what takes place inside living cells all the time. Cells are exposed to signals -- hormones, growth factors, and other chemicals -- and their proteins will tend to react and respond initially, but then settle down to pre-stimulus levels of activity even though the stimulus is still there. "I studied all the possible ways a network can be constructed and found that to be capable of this perfect adaptation in a robust way, a network has to satisfy an extremely rigid set of mathematical principles. There are a surprisingly limited number of ways a network could be constructed to perform perfect adaptation.,,, Professor Lance Liotta, said the "amazing and surprising" outcome of Dr Araujo's study is applicable to any living organism or biochemical network of any size.,,, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180502094636.htm The Math That Tells Cells What They Are - March 13, 2019 Excerpt: It’s now known that some form of positional information makes genes variously switch on and off throughout the embryo, giving cells distinct identities based on their location.,,, That mounting evidence is leading some biologists to a bold hypothesis: that where information is concerned, cells might often find solutions to life’s challenges that are not just good but optimal — that cells extract as much useful information from their complex surroundings as is theoretically possible.,,, when researchers have been able to appropriately determine what cells are doing, many have been surprised to see clear indications of optimization.,,, “I don’t think optimization is an aesthetic or philosophical idea. It’s a very concrete idea,” Bialek said.,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-math-that-tells-cells-what-they-are-20190313/
bornagain77
October 28, 2022
October
10
Oct
28
28
2022
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PST
as to design imperfections, let me add this one: Fasted dog alive https://youtu.be/AE6mfQp06Jk No combustion engines, no electro-motors, zero noise ... An engineering masterpiece ... PS: And some professor of biology (natural science graduate) dares to talk about some 'imperfections' .... Darwinian clowns :)))))))))martin_r
October 27, 2022
October
10
Oct
27
27
2022
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PST
again ? they won't stop ... professor of biology is the top expert in design/engineering ? :)))))))))))))) these people don't even realize how ridiculous/stupid are ... Let's have another look at human "imperfection". Human's design: https://youtu.be/uhND7Mvp3f4?t=231 God's design: https://youtu.be/NX7QNWEGcNI?t=42 PS: i was wondering when the 'perfect' human made humanoid robot will be able to swim/divemartin_r
October 27, 2022
October
10
Oct
27
27
2022
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply