Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent Design and GM Crops

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I posted this news item about GM crops on the Science and Values blog and would be interested in starting a discussion about how intelligent design proponents view genetically modified crops. If design in nature is ‘optimal’ then can that be improved through human intervention? What does ID predict, perhaps that GM crops will always be sub-optimal?

What is happening with Monsanto these days? A recent report by Navdanya in India has noted that Bt Cotton is damaging the soil in parts of India by reducing the number of bacteria that perform vital ecological roles. Monsanto’s policy appears to be to make farmers around the world dependent upon their own GM modified seeds and pesticides, that they have patented, in order to make a profit for shareholders.

Read more at the Institute of Science and Society website Institute of Science and Society

Meanwhile, in America there is concern about a Food Safety Modernization Act 2009 that seeks to extend food safety laws to seeds that are to be grown for food. The concern centres around possible dependency on GM crops by small farmer’s who fear they will be forced into the arms of big multinationals when unnecessary health and safety legislation becomes too costly petition comments

The pressure from secular science to extend ethically questionable practices has recently been shown by Obama’s determination to push through embryonic stem cell research, a technology that can lead to tumours and is less stable than adult stem cells, together with being ethically questionable because it leads to the destruction of the embryo.

In the same way the idea that it is acceptable to modify seeds and patent crops for profit, and thus make small farmers dependent upon big business for seeds, also goes against the grain of creation, and against the idea of equality in the global economy.

Comments
But more likely is that information has been lost from the original design... Could you explain why that's "more likely" and what it's "more likely" than? And this argument really makes me angry. Sure, some things may appear to be "suboptimally designed" to deal with their ecology. But if they weren't then there would only be 5 or 6 living things on the earth. Nothing would be able to exploit anything else because everything would be 'perfect'. Instead, we have a massive variety of life. If you look at it from that point of view, then things ARE optimally designed, but striving for maximum diversity, not maximum perfection. This is the best of all possible worlds.AmerikanInKananaskis
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Where did we get the idea that ID predicts "optimal design"? Perhaps the design is not optimal, and there are many possible reasons for it. But more likely is that information has been lost from the original design, resulting in errors in what may originally have been optimal design. This could be the case regardless of whether you are a creationist or front-loader evolutionist or whatever. ID does not predict optimal design. There is no reason why ID theorists would necessarily take a particular stance on this issue.tragic mishap
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
how intelligent design proponents view genetically modified crops. If design in nature is ‘optimal’ then can that be improved through human intervention? What does ID predict, perhaps that GM crops will always be sub-optimal?
The success in achieving optimality is determined by the design goals. Many times we do not have access to the design goals. Something with the design goal of being light weight may not be fuel efficient. For example, a vehicle that is desgined to be fuel efficient may not necessarily be light weight. An airplane is not maximally efficient in terms of thermodynamics, but it is pretty optimal in terms of its weight. Trains are optimal in terms of fuel efficiency. Actually Space Shuttles and space probes are the most fuel efficient in terms of distace per kilogram of fuel, but they cannot operate well in atmospheric environments at cruising speed (lest they disintegrate). I would guess bird metabolisms (for flight) or those which expend a lot of energy to maintain a set temperature (such as in "warm blooded creatures") are not necessarily the most optimal along the dimension of thermodynamic efficiency. However they are probably optimal if we evaluate them against other design goals. Plant seem definitely super optimal in terms of energy consumption. We could not expect such performance from other creatures. On the otherhand, plants don't fly like birds or monarch butterflies. Without access to the design goals, it is hard to render a judgement. Monsanto is an interesting example of engineers resorting to deliberate "bad design". One of their controversial technologies were self destruct mechanisms in their GMO's to prevent their crops from being reproduced and distributed without their control. They resorted to "Terminator and Traitor" technologies which allowed certain chemical treatments to evolve the direction of the crop development. The reprogrammed the plant genomes so that they they could turn of traits and features, and even the ability to reproduce at will by merely spraying triggering substances onto the seeds. One peripherally related subject of GM crops is related to design identification. I posted on it at UD genetic-id, an instance of design detection? (topic revisited)scordova
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Here's my take on the question, based on my own experience and a bit of research: We need to be clear what we mean by sub-optimal. GM crops are manipulated to do specific things, one of which is not to survive in wild nature. If you want that, go with the local flora which have done so for at least thousands of years, with no human help.* But the GM cropster wants, for example, a "heart-healthy" oilseed plant for margarine, and breeds a plant that - when protected in a largely artificial environment (= the average farm) will produce the needed type of oil. Obviously, at least some aspects of such a plant are the product of human design. But in fairness, no one ever thought of breeding it to survive and continue to breed in the wild. Quite the opposite: "Volunteers" - weeds that are the offspring of hybrid plants - are destroyed when encountered, and I imagine that GM volunteers will meet the same fate. I have met many sad volunteers while gardening. They only have some of what they need to survive at all, never mind to survive without cultivation! My favourite was the volunteer squash that produced only male flowers. (The squash must produce female flowers as well as male ones in order to set fruit.) I did not think its fruit would be edible anyway, but when its no-fruit tendency became evident beyond reasonable doubt, I tore it to pieces and composted it around a vicious Northern rose bush. Why waste plant materials? So it was, as Noah says to a lone Muppet in the Space Muppets movie, DOOMED!!! Now, the interesting question - and I don't think we have an answer yet - is this: Could humans intelligently design a plant that coped better with a natural environment than a native one? European dooryard weeds like the dandelion do not count because humans didn't design them. We merely imported them around the globe, along with the Norway rat. *Here in southern Ontario, our landscape is post-Ice Age, so the life forms we see in wild nature around us are those that moved in after the Wisconsin Ice Sheet melted, forming huge lakes. Today, there are five of them, called - The Great Lakes. I live on the smallest of them, Lake Ontario. But it is still pretty big.O'Leary
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
"There’s no other way we can feed 10 billion people." Yea, yeah, yeah, we've heard this lone centuries... The figure was once 500,000. Keep your manipulated food to yourself. The exact same people behind Monsanto are behind codex alimentarius. What is codex alimentarius? Just google it, or read this page for a primer. http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=157 Please do what you can to stop these laws being passed in the USA.Gods iPod
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
I fail to see the connection between GM food and embryo destruction. Embryos have rights; crops don't. As for "optimality," it is a relative concept. Optimal relative to a crop's native environment doesn't equate to optimal relative to the man-made environment in which they are cultivated. Regarding "natural" farming, I think it was the writer A. A. Phillips who once said, "It is perfectly natural for people to be artificial." Here's why I have little patience with those opposing GM food because it is "unnatural": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2700176/Europes-GM-food-fear-exacerbates-famine.html Many Africans are starving because Europeans think it is wrong to tamper with "Mother Nature." That's evil. Unless we want to live in a dystopia in which boffins, guided by their infallible computer models of how many people the Earth can sustainably support, dictate to us how many children we can have (i.e. one or none), we simply have no choice but to try new ways of feeding ourselves. There's no other way we can feed 10 billion people.vjtorley
March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply