This argument is effectively answered in a talk.origins FAQ. It
can be found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
>As another example, let's look at your statement:
>
> 'This is how the "argument from imperfection" arose'
>
>I'm not enough of an historian to attempt a guess at when the
>argument from imperfection arose. If we go as far back as Darwin
>we'll find one of Darwin's contemporaries, Richard Owen, making
>extensive use of the argument.
This makes sense. At and before Darwin's time, it was quite common
for people to believe in literal Creation; much more common than it
is today. Therefore, the "argument from imperfection" arose as a
response to the claims that life is so well-designed that it must
have been intelligently created.
>It is clear that Darwin borrowed
>some of his examples of imperfections from Owen. Interestingly,
>Owen was a creationist who used the argument from imperfection
>as an argument *for* design. It seems quite possible then that
>the argument from imperfection originated with creationists ;-).
Well, now I'm really confused... <g>
>The point of these examples is that context is essential. For
>someone like Owen, the argument from imperfection is obviously
>knocking down a strawman.
>
>The problem as I see it is that appropriate context is
>practically never given. For example, the talk.origins FAQ
><Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature> has the following
>as its opening paragraph:
>
> Many organisms show features of appallingly bad design.
> This is because evolution via natural selection cannot
> construct traits from scratch; new traits must be
> modifications of previously existing traits. This is
> called historical constraint. A few examples of bad
> design imposed by historical constraint:
>
>There is no mention whatsoever of the appropriate context of
>the argument from imperfection here. We do, however, see a
>very strong claim being made "appallingly bad design" with
>absolutely no supporting analysis except stuff like "looks
>like bad design to me".
I've read that FAQ too. The analyses give not only examples of
why the designs are bad, but how they could have been improved.
>If the writers of this FAQ want to
>maintain their position of "appallingly bad design", then
>they also need to define exactly what design is and how its
>idntified and measured objectively.
That is exactly what people have been asking Creationists
to do for decades, considering that it is the Cre'ists who
are claiming that there is a "design".
>Otherwise they're just
>giving their opinions,
No, they're giving specific examples of how certain features
are less than optimal, and how they could be more effectively
optimized.
>>>BH>For example, one says "the eye would obviously be better designed
>>>without a blind spot". This involves the implicit (and ridiculous)
>>>assumption that one can change one aspect of a complicated design
>>>keeping everything else constant.
>>
>>RS>It was done with the squid. Squids don't have a blind spot.
>>
>>>BH>Of course, one could say that
>>>God could accomplish this feat if he wished. But now you're supporting
>>>your argument with theology. This is taking the easy way out that
>>>creationists are so often condemned for. To really support the
>>>case that the blind spot is bad, one has to come up with an alternate
>>>design and demonstrate that it is better. No one has done this.
>>
>>RS>Nature has. We have merely pointed it out.
>>
>
>Are you saying squid eyes are actually better than
>human eyes?
Yes.
>If so, by what criteria?
Because they don't have a blind spot.
>>>BH>What I mean here, of course, is an alternate design of a human
>>>eye, and not something completely different like a cephalopod
>>>eye.
>>
>>RS>Why not? The designs (so to speak) are very similar.
>>
>>>BH>I'm pretty sure that I still have all the relevant posts from the
>>>t.o thread that I could forward to you if you are interested in
>>>all the gory details. If memory serves the crucial points were:
>>>
>>>1) a complicated interdependence between the various structures.
>>>included in this is the importance of the relative locations of
>>>some of the structures. One cannot simply change or move one thing
>>>without producing a whole host of changes in other things. To
>>>remove the blind spot one would have to move a lot of stuff.
>>
>>RS>So it is your argument that it would be impossible to make this
>>minor change in the layout of blood vessels in the retina?
>>
>
>No. My argument is that the consequences of this change upon the
>performance of the eye are not known.
The consequences are known, because it is known to occur in the squid.
And it doesn't seem to be a problem.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.