Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GeoTheo · 08-17-2002, 01:09 PM

I think historical constraint is a better term to describe why organisms appear to be limited by the design of the organisms in their evolutionary past.
People can use whatever term they wish, but if the goal is to convince people of evolution and not merely to take potshots at Christianity I think the use of this term would be wise.
For example in a classroom setting, where a biology teacher is attempting to teach evolution to students who may be biased in favor of creation. Presenting what a bad job God did in creating living things is a good way to increase hostility and not learning. Christian students will be put on the defensive. Their belief in God is being attacked.
Despite this there are obvious flaws in the argument that designs are good or bad. The fact that the human brain is capable of compiling a list of inefficient designs that show historical constraint is testimony that the design of the human brain is good.
Also there is the problem of what the goal of the designer is. Perhaps inneficient designs show purpose. For example organisms seem not to be totally independant but part of a larger ecosystem. Perhaps a perfectly designed predator able to succeed in every hunt and reproduce exponentially at will would destroy the system. Organisms tend to wear out and die. There are many human designs that have a similar purpose. Automobiles could be composed of stainless steel and never rust. Pantyhose could be designed to last for decades. Such indestructablility is not the intention of the designer.

Starboy · 08-17-2002, 01:30 PM

Hi GeoTheo,

How are you? It has been a while since last we traded posts. There really shouldn�t be a great conflict between theists and non-theists on this issue. Theists like to think that things are the way they are because man is god�s favorite creature. A-theists are glad because it allows us to be alive and to enjoy life. Evolution was not created to disprove religion. The question should be �Why do Christians see evolution to be a threat at all?� You know the answer and it has nothing to do with what is taught in the classroom.

Starboy

Kevin Dorner · 08-17-2002, 01:40 PM

Geo:

I doubt that any (sane) teacher or professor would use the "bad design" argument right off the bat. It would be divisive, hostile and not at all conducive.

The only time that really comes up is when someone starts pushing ID: that each separate species was designed individually and that none of them are related to each other via common descent. The best way of refuting this is to show that if this is the case, the designer would have to have deliberately designed organisms badly/inefficiently in order to make them appear to have not been designed at all.

Albion · 08-17-2002, 04:25 PM

Quote:

For example in a classroom setting, where a biology teacher is attempting to teach evolution to students who may be biased in favor of creation. Presenting what a bad job God did in creating living things is a good way to increase hostility and not learning.

A teacher surely wouldn't be able to do that in a public school without deservedly getting into a lot of trouble. However, if a teacher pointed out that common descent resulted in some suboptimal configurations and gave examples, that'd be part of the teacher's job. For some kids who have been brought up to believe the Bible is the literal word of God and the only source of truth, anything short of "God did it, praise God" will be offensive. The alternative is to say nothing, and that's unfair to the teacher and the rest of the class.

Sometimes I wonder how why anybody would want to be a biology teacher in the public schools these days.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Albion ]</p>

Bubba · 08-19-2002, 06:54 PM

Actually I find the arguement from suboptimal design to be one of the strongest for evolution and I'm a thiest.

How the hell does Lou Gehrigs disease count as intelligent design? Or Cancer? Or AIDS? Or Anemia? Wouldn't it actually be helpful to theology to look at all of the diseases and bad things in the world as NOT God's direct design???

Bubba

Doubting Didymus · 08-19-2002, 08:30 PM

If they did that, wouldn't they be admitting that got is not omnipotent? I mean, even if god didn't directly intervene in their creation, he is supposed to have the power to stop them, right?

DireStraits · 08-19-2002, 08:46 PM

For example in a classroom setting, where a biology teacher is attempting to teach evolution to students who may be biased in favor of creation. Presenting what a bad job God did in creating living things is a good way to increase hostility and not learning.

DS: And also a good way of losing his job. Why is it that so many anti-evolutionists think that evolution is necessarily atheistic outlook? Why is it that none of them ever answer why it is that Catholics are allowed by The Vatican to make up their own minds on this subject?

Christian students will be put on the defensive. Their belief in God is being attacked.

DireStraits: This is a complete strawman that you ought to be ashamed of constructing.

Despite this there are obvious flaws in the argument that designs are good or bad. The fact that the human brain is capable of compiling a list of inefficient designs that show historical constraint is testimony that the design of the human brain is good.

DireStraits: Ah, yes, but we are taliking about optimal here, right?

Also there is the problem of what the goal of the designer is. Perhaps inneficient designs show purpose. For example organisms seem not to be totally independant but part of a larger ecosystem. Perhaps a perfectly designed predator able to succeed in every hunt and reproduce exponentially at will would destroy the system.

DireStraits: No, it doesn't have to have that effect. It might mean that a species will die out though. And 99% of all known species have indeed died out.

Why do you think that is? Did the designer design them so that they would die out? If so, why?

Organisms tend to wear out and die. There are many human designs that have a similar purpose. Automobiles could be composed of stainless steel and never rust.

DireStraits: No. They could not.

Pantyhose could be designed to last for decades. Such indestructablility is not the intention of the designer.

DireStraits: What, the designer has planned obselescene in his plan? He wants to see better models brought in so that he can make more money? Does he have a competitor who is edging him out of the market?

scigirl · 08-19-2002, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:
Presenting what a bad job God did in creating living things is a good way to increase hostility and not learning.

I agree - I think God did a great job designing me for instance!

Seriously though, you make some good points.

If I was a science teacher, I would just present evidence - and explain the scientific method, and discuss how theories are accepted. Religion and atheism never even need to enter the picture. I suppose I might have discussions such as "how do scientific discoveries change our society?" or something like that.

In other words, I would teach evolution the way my evo prof did. Stick to the science - leave any religious mention completely out of it.

scigirl

scigirl · 08-19-2002, 08:55 PM

Oh I also want to add,

I dislike the words "good" and "bad" anyway, in terms of biology.

Those words belong in philosophy or ethics, not science.

Organisms, and biological systems, have characteristics which make them well-adapted for some situations and ill-adapted for others. An over-active immune system is helpful in a germ-rich environment but not so great in relatively germ-free areas.

scigirl

Bubba · 08-20-2002, 02:40 AM

Scigirl, I've enjoyed your posts, but I do differ on one small point. Good and Bad may belong more to philosophy or theology than to biology but both theology and philosophy are part of this debate so I don't see the problem of using them here.

And yes, I think your well "designed" (whatever the term actually means) also.

Bubba

08-17-2002, 01:09 PM	#1
GeoTheo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Bemidji Posts: 1,197	Historical constraint vs. Bad design I think historical constraint is a better term to describe why organisms appear to be limited by the design of the organisms in their evolutionary past. People can use whatever term they wish, but if the goal is to convince people of evolution and not merely to take potshots at Christianity I think the use of this term would be wise. For example in a classroom setting, where a biology teacher is attempting to teach evolution to students who may be biased in favor of creation. Presenting what a bad job God did in creating living things is a good way to increase hostility and not learning. Christian students will be put on the defensive. Their belief in God is being attacked. Despite this there are obvious flaws in the argument that designs are good or bad. The fact that the human brain is capable of compiling a list of inefficient designs that show historical constraint is testimony that the design of the human brain is good. Also there is the problem of what the goal of the designer is. Perhaps inneficient designs show purpose. For example organisms seem not to be totally independant but part of a larger ecosystem. Perhaps a perfectly designed predator able to succeed in every hunt and reproduce exponentially at will would destroy the system. Organisms tend to wear out and die. There are many human designs that have a similar purpose. Automobiles could be composed of stainless steel and never rust. Pantyhose could be designed to last for decades. Such indestructablility is not the intention of the designer.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-17-2002, 01:30 PM	#2
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Hi GeoTheo, How are you? It has been a while since last we traded posts. There really shouldn�t be a great conflict between theists and non-theists on this issue. Theists like to think that things are the way they are because man is god�s favorite creature. A-theists are glad because it allows us to be alive and to enjoy life. Evolution was not created to disprove religion. The question should be �Why do Christians see evolution to be a threat at all?� You know the answer and it has nothing to do with what is taught in the classroom. Starboy

08-17-2002, 01:40 PM	#3
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	Geo: I doubt that any (sane) teacher or professor would use the "bad design" argument right off the bat. It would be divisive, hostile and not at all conducive. The only time that really comes up is when someone starts pushing ID: that each separate species was designed individually and that none of them are related to each other via common descent. The best way of refuting this is to show that if this is the case, the designer would have to have deliberately designed organisms badly/inefficiently in order to make them appear to have not been designed at all.

08-19-2002, 06:54 PM	#5
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Actually I find the arguement from suboptimal design to be one of the strongest for evolution and I'm a thiest. How the hell does Lou Gehrigs disease count as intelligent design? Or Cancer? Or AIDS? Or Anemia? Wouldn't it actually be helpful to theology to look at all of the diseases and bad things in the world as NOT God's direct design??? Bubba

08-19-2002, 08:30 PM	#6
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	If they did that, wouldn't they be admitting that got is not omnipotent? I mean, even if god didn't directly intervene in their creation, he is supposed to have the power to stop them, right?

08-19-2002, 08:46 PM	#7
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	For example in a classroom setting, where a biology teacher is attempting to teach evolution to students who may be biased in favor of creation. Presenting what a bad job God did in creating living things is a good way to increase hostility and not learning. DS: And also a good way of losing his job. Why is it that so many anti-evolutionists think that evolution is necessarily atheistic outlook? Why is it that none of them ever answer why it is that Catholics are allowed by The Vatican to make up their own minds on this subject? Christian students will be put on the defensive. Their belief in God is being attacked. DireStraits: This is a complete strawman that you ought to be ashamed of constructing. Despite this there are obvious flaws in the argument that designs are good or bad. The fact that the human brain is capable of compiling a list of inefficient designs that show historical constraint is testimony that the design of the human brain is good. DireStraits: Ah, yes, but we are taliking about optimal here, right? Also there is the problem of what the goal of the designer is. Perhaps inneficient designs show purpose. For example organisms seem not to be totally independant but part of a larger ecosystem. Perhaps a perfectly designed predator able to succeed in every hunt and reproduce exponentially at will would destroy the system. DireStraits: No, it doesn't have to have that effect. It might mean that a species will die out though. And 99% of all known species have indeed died out. Why do you think that is? Did the designer design them so that they would die out? If so, why? Organisms tend to wear out and die. There are many human designs that have a similar purpose. Automobiles could be composed of stainless steel and never rust. DireStraits: No. They could not. Pantyhose could be designed to last for decades. Such indestructablility is not the intention of the designer. DireStraits: What, the designer has planned obselescene in his plan? He wants to see better models brought in so that he can make more money? Does he have a competitor who is edging him out of the market?

08-19-2002, 08:55 PM	#9
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Oh I also want to add, I dislike the words "good" and "bad" anyway, in terms of biology. Those words belong in philosophy or ethics, not science. Organisms, and biological systems, have characteristics which make them well-adapted for some situations and ill-adapted for others. An over-active immune system is helpful in a germ-rich environment but not so great in relatively germ-free areas. scigirl

08-20-2002, 02:40 AM	#10
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Scigirl, I've enjoyed your posts, but I do differ on one small point. Good and Bad may belong more to philosophy or theology than to biology but both theology and philosophy are part of this debate so I don't see the problem of using them here. And yes, I think your well "designed" (whatever the term actually means) also. Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.