Brian writes:
>The author makes the case for the inverted eye
>"design" to be superior to all other designs. For sake
>of argument, let's suppose this is true.
I'm not familiar with this article/author, but I have
read a couple of other articles about this topic that
make a similar point. At this spot, it is worth stepping
back to see once again that ID can indeed generate
testable hypotheses with the potential to bring about
a better understanding of the world. In fact, in this case,
one might say that Darwinism is the 'science killer' as
this perspective is quite satisfied with leaving the
vertebrate eye in the "bad design" class and explaining
this apparent irrationality as something to be expected
from a blind watchmaker.
But on to your question:
>My question is this. Since the intelligent designer is
>capable of re-using designs and since this does make
>sense from the engineering design point of view, why
>did he not employ this superior design more uniformly,
>i.e. instead of some of the apparently "inferior" designs
>we find elsewhere?
Good question. But this is a research question. That is,
you've hit on yet another way ID can guide scientific research,
as attempts to address this question would do just that.
Let's think of some possible hypotheses:
1. If one has evidence that various orders and genus of
vertebrates are the products of intelligent intervention, this
superior design has indeed been commonly employed.
Things would then become fuzzy and subjective when
trying to argue it should have been used yet *more*
commonly.
2. It may be a superior design for a *vertebrate*. Would
the vertebrate eye in a fruit fly really be better? Are we
comparing apples and oranges?
2a. Organs are the products of embryological development
and the design of eyes would involve the design of developmental
pathways. Thus, there might be a trade-off between the finished
product and the means of generating the product such that
"superior design" is really found to optimally balance the
two.
3. Not everything is necessarily the product of intelligent
intervention. Thus, a superior vs. inferior design could
reflect an origin via an intelligent watchmaker vs. one
via a blind watchmaker.
4. Remember that we study organisms with a history
of some degree of evolution. An organism with an
inferior design might have originated with a much better
design, yet environmental constraints may have relaxed
at some point to allow the design to tolerate degradation.
The bottom line is that I don't know how to answer your
question as I have not thought about this issue much (nor
do I possess extensive knowledge about vision physiology).
In fact, if someone has an answer, chances are
they are relying on their own metaphysics and philosophy
since such a question really requires research. How does one
define "superior" and compare different design plans? Does it
make much sense to ask if a luxury car is superior to a sports
car?
It would seem to me that the real point behind all this is that
the "bad design" argument for the vertebrate eye is not without
a response and that response itself is capable of generating
research and understanding.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 02 2000 - 22:57:31 EDT