Argument from bad design. Very, very bad design!

[Philip]

The universe was intelligently designed to be temporary and sustain life.

Absolutely. To truly understand the WHY of the design God put into the universe, we'd have to be able to understand His purpose for each living creature. And scripture teaches that EVERYTHING in THIS place/earth, in THIS time/universe is designed to be temporary. This would include all but what is spiritual (man), and only the spiritual part of him. So what has been physically created along with the design of each, up to this time, is not meant to be optimal nor perfect. Each creation is, however, specifically designed for its own temporary function AND PURPOSE in the present physical universe. Also, out of many of the "imperfections" in how we were created, spring forth many challenges which also have spurred within us an innate sense of our own needs, inadequacies, spiritual emptiness - and thus the universal quest of mankind to seek out God or at least some understanding about what it is that gives purpose to our earthly journey and reason for living.

I am an old-earth creationist. But I do not believe in macro evolution (for either man or animals), but do believe in micro evolution. Everything from fossils to plate tectonics have been crucial to life on earth. Man's rise has been brief and only possible upon an earth that is likely about 4.5 billion years old (universe about 13.73 billion years old). The extinctions (and imperfect forms, if you will) have been crucial to man's rise.

Below is a link listing 154 parameters and processes showing the necessary fine-tuning of earth for life. And for those whom read media articles suggesting that if water is found on another planet of the right size, proximity to a star, etc - that there's a good chance life has evolved there as well - the list linked below reveals just how complex are the parameters that led to and allow life on earth to even be possible.

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-earth-june-2004

[Ivellious]

Just a quick point about giving God credit for everything we do as humans...

I disagree to a point. Why is it egotistical to say that humans have accomplished a great deal in the brief time that we've been on Earth? I understand the concept that God gave us potential. And in that case, God would be indirectly responsible for everything. But the caveat is that if you want to give God credit for everything we do with that potential, all the bad must go with it. Namely, all the evil we commit as a whole, destruction of the planet we are given, raping the Earth and its inhabitants of everything they have to further our development...So if you want to credit everything we do as God's work, be sure to remember that He gave us potential for evil and failure, too...

I'm not totally bashing your idea though. I just wouldn't say that the framework of Christianity demands that God gets credit for everything we do as individuals that is good, while he gets no credit for the bad. It either needs to cut both ways or we need to be held responsible and given credit for using that potential and how we use it.

[Canuckster1127]

Just a quick point about giving God credit for everything we do as humans...

I disagree to a point. Why is it egotistical to say that humans have accomplished a great deal in the brief time that we've been on Earth? I understand the concept that God gave us potential. And in that case, God would be indirectly responsible for everything. But the caveat is that if you want to give God credit for everything we do with that potential, all the bad must go with it. Namely, all the evil we commit as a whole, destruction of the planet we are given, raping the Earth and its inhabitants of everything they have to further our development...So if you want to credit everything we do as God's work, be sure to remember that He gave us potential for evil and failure, too...

I'm not totally bashing your idea though. I just wouldn't say that the framework of Christianity demands that God gets credit for everything we do as individuals that is good, while he gets no credit for the bad. It either needs to cut both ways or we need to be held responsible and given credit for using that potential and how we use it.

That's actually a good point Ivellious and it illustrates discussions that take place as well within Christianity, between those who take a hard deterministic point of view and those who advocate that there is free will. What isn't usually doubted is God's foreknowledge. It's a question of active determination, or permissive will granted which implies that along with the choice to do "right" there must necessarily be the opportunity and ability to do "wrong" or right and wrong have no real meaning and further God's desire to relate and commune with man cannot be a relationship of "love" where man is without choice.

That's oversimplified but that captures it in a nutshell.

Some christians do have a tendency to attribute all that is good in their lives to God while taking personal responsibility for that which is bad or wrong in their lives. That arises from a desire to worship God and give Him thanks. It's not strictly true however when we look at both Christians and non-Christians. Most Christians, even those who believe in Total Depravity, don't believe that that means every person is just as wrong and evil as they can be. We recognize what is called as "Prevenient Grace" or "Common Grace" meaning that even people who don't directly acknowledge God or commune with Him, are capable of good acts of charity and kindness to others. I'll be honest too when I say I know some non-Christians who are kinder and more charitable people than some Christians. Of course the reverse is true as well. It is sad that some who name themselves as Christians either haven't really made a sincere personal commitment to allowing God to work through them, or are not allowing God to transform them into a person that others can look at and be attracted to God by the sweet smell that comes from their lives and love of others. I confess, I often need to be reminded of that myself and I'm not by any means a stellar example in all areas at all times.

Ultimately Christians don't believe that God judges us on the scales of the good in our life outweighing the bad. While there is good on a common level that can be identified in many, at the core we are in need of God to rescue us by His grace and we rely upon Him and Christ to do that work in us, and on the other side, while we're certainly not perfected by God yet in all areas of our lives, the assumption is that because we love God and share God's love for others, we'll act in the manner Jesus taught and modeled (Golden rule, Loving our enemies, the beatitudes, etc.).

Often times criticisms I see coming from New or Militant atheists, tend to make huge generalizations of their own and take the most inconsistent forms of Chrisitianity that they can find and by that label all Christians in broad sweeping generalizations. Of coure, that takes place in the other direction as well. While Christians are not going to surrender our belief that Christ is the bridge between God and Man, we are to treat others with respect and show sacrificial love and patience toward those who disagree with us or even who are our declared enemies. At least, that's the example Jesus set that we're to follow.

[Ivellious]

To be fair I think it cuts both ways...I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to give all credit for the good of humanity to God while blaming humans on all that is bad. I also think it's silly to argue against the Christian God by taking credit for everything good in your life, while putting all the blame for the bad on God (which some militant atheists do). Again, personally I'd say the best way to look at it is God gave us potential. Both the potential for great things as well as evil and destruction. In essence, in doing so I personally give credit to humanity for everything we've done with our own perseverance and willpower and intuition and ingenuity, but you can still give God the credit for making it possible. At the same time, we are responsible for the negative actions we take as well, but that was also made possible by God.

This of course means I am presuming total free will of everyone on Earth.

[Canuckster1127]

To be fair I think it cuts both ways...I think it's a little bit narrow-minded to give all credit for the good of humanity to God while blaming humans on all that is bad. I also think it's silly to argue against the Christian God by taking credit for everything good in your life, while putting all the blame for the bad on God (which some militant atheists do). Again, personally I'd say the best way to look at it is God gave us potential. Both the potential for great things as well as evil and destruction. In essence, in doing so I personally give credit to humanity for everything we've done with our own perseverance and willpower and intuition and ingenuity, but you can still give God the credit for making it possible. At the same time, we are responsible for the negative actions we take as well, but that was also made possible by God.

This of course means I am presuming total free will of everyone on Earth.

What you're suggesting (with caveats of course in some areas) isn't inconsistent with some of the major branches of Christianity. Even those who take a hard deterministic point of view with regard to salvation are often not as hard in terms of personal responsibility and free will outside of that.

[Ivellious]

True, most Christians probably don't feel that way, but some (mostly evangelical) Christians do. By the same token, not all atheists take such a harsh stance as the one I used as an example.

[Canuckster1127]

True, most Christians probably don't feel that way, but some (mostly evangelical) Christians do. By the same token, not all atheists take such a harsh stance as the one I used as an example.

It's not a consistent hardline position among evangelicals even so, but I understand how the vocal minority that tends in that direction can be seen as more influential.

I understand too what you're saying with regard to Hard-Line, Militant or "New" Atheists and you're right, not all atheists are anti-religion. There are times when I think that the Dawkins crowd (representative of the hard line I'd say) and some of our extreme fundamentalists on the Christian side have more in common with each other in terms of their approach to things and lack of moderation than do the majority of people of both "camps" who for the most part can at least have a civil conversation and show understanding and respect for the people involved, even where there's disagreement on issues.

One of my hobbies is book reviewing on Amazon and over the years I've been fortunate enough to hit some of the higher levels of ranking in that activity. I have a fairly extended network of other high rated reviewers who participate in a special forum set up for us by Amazon. I'm not the only Christian there, but I'm most certainly in the minority. Over time however, I've built friendships and relationships, at least in terms of interacting on the on-line community with Atheists of varying stripes and agnostics and different religions. I'm open where I disagree on things and why, but I also listen and accept that others hold differnt views.

Maybe it's a reflection of the type of people (a lot of academics) who are drawn to reviewing across different genres, but it's something I appreciate and fell that it's helped me to grow in terms of interacting and working through things. Of course, within some Christian circles (reference the hardcore fundamentalists mentioned above) it makes me apostate of backslidden for even entertaining the interaction. I've come to peace with that and accept it.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I'm not totally bashing your idea though. I just wouldn't say that the framework of Christianity demands that God gets credit for everything we do as individuals that is good, while he gets no credit for the bad. It either needs to cut both ways or we need to be held responsible and given credit for using that potential and how we use it.

Hi Ivellious

I believe God is in all things good and bad, sometimes he uses other people's evil choice to correct, discipline and call people according to his will. Romans 8:28
So yes we should praise God when people are persecuting us or when "natural evil" happens because through that God is working towards our salvation.

Dan

[domokunrox]

You guys got lost.

I don't believe I ever said give God credit for everything you do. If I did, sorry. I should have clarified further. You give God credit for finding the truth. The truth he has revealed to you. The good he has taught you. The instinctive sense of what is objectively good.

It would be an absolute insult to God to say you learned rape, murder, theft, etc from God. God does not teach us to sin. He can only know and only teach us righteousness. He does not know or teach us anything that is contrary to his nature.

[Danieltwotwenty]

You guys got lost.

I don't believe I ever said give God credit for everything you do. If I did, sorry. I should have clarified further. You give God credit for finding the truth. The truth he has revealed to you. The good he has taught you. The instinctive sense of what is objectively good.

It would be an absolute insult to God to say you learned rape, murder, theft, etc from God. God does not teach us to sin. He can only know and only teach us righteousness. He does not know or teach us anything that is contrary to his nature.

I am not sure if this is directed at me, I didn't mean that God caused bad things to happen or for people to do evil things but that through these things God exerts his will.


Dan

[domokunrox]

No worries, Dan. Its not directed at you specifically. Its plural statement.

Thank you for clarifying. Not sure if I agree with your statement still. Maybe something is lost in translation.

[Danieltwotwenty]

No worries, Dan. Its not directed at you specifically. Its plural statement.

Thank you for clarifying. Not sure if I agree with your statement still. Maybe something is lost in translation.

That's ok maybe it's the Aussie accent.

[Kurieuo]

Sup peeps,

I think that one of the strongest arguments against theism and Christianity is the argument from bad design...

I had some very nasty choking experiences and they even grew up into fear of choking. I had fear when eating my food. I overcame my fears, but in the end I'm a biologist... It seems that we really are so badly designed that we just can't had been created by a loving God.

What do you think?

I think this (good/bad design) is subjective, however bad design still suggests a designer does it not? In which case if I am to respond to your argument, which presupposes a creator, I'd just tell you to take it up with your Creator when you die.

As for your attack on Gods character if He authored bad design, this is really primitive Atheistic argumentation. All that is required logically, is that a wholly benevolent God had sufficient reason for allowing "bad" design in His creation. I can think of many reasons, both logically and biblically why God would, for example, build in death as a natural process in our world.

So it isn't entirely clear that God could not have sufficient reason, which is what you would need to argue to make your case that either God is malevolent or not all powerful.

[Vespetta]

One of the examples of "bad design" proposed
by Olshansky et al. is the human esophagus. At the bottom of the throat, the trachea (the
passage that leads to the lungs) enter the
esophagus. When you swallow food or water, a
structure called the epiglottis closes to cover
your trachea so that these materials do not go
into your lungs. The system does not work perfectly every time, as we have all
experienced when choking on food or water
that "goes down the wrong way." In some
instances, this choking can be life threatening.
Olshansky et al. suggest that a better design would be to have two separate tubes - one
leading from the nose directly into the lungs
and the second leading from the mouth directly
to the stomach. There are several problems with this "better"
design. First, to have two tubes in the neck
would require extra space and extra systems
(with the associated additional energy costs) to
maintain two structures. More importantly, it
would be very difficult to breathe when you get a sinus infection. Congestion in the nose would
be life threatening, since it would prevent or
severely restrict breathing, since the nose
would be the only way that air could enter the
lungs. There would also be the problem of
getting rid of liquid that accidentally enters the lungs. It would have to be pushed all the way
up to the nose and expelled there (make sure
you carry lots of tissue with you!). Under the
current system, it need only go to the top of the
trachea and the down the esophagus to the
stomach. The two tube design would also restrict the amount of physical activity that
humans could do. When we run, we take in air
through our mouths, since the larger opening
allows for a more rapid respiration rate. The
only way to allow for a large respiration rate
with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose.
Not only would this look ugly, but the larger
openings would present problems. Things
could enter into such large openings and have
direct access to your lungs (How would you like
to inhale a fly into your lungs?). Larger nasal passages would also reduce the temperature
of the air, since it could not be heated as
effectively (important for cold climates). Another
major problem would be speech and language.
We need to use our mouths and tongue in
order to produce speech. Air running over vocal cords, in the absence of a tongue, lips
and teeth, would only be able to produce a
very limited number of sounds (it might not
affect Rambo, but the rest of us would have a
difficult time communicating). Try it some time
(hold your mouth open and don't move your tongue as you attempt to communicate). Of
course the evolutionist might propose
additional structures in the nose (like a tongue,
lips and teeth-like structures). So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing
for a superior breathing apparatus. Our
trachea would continue up to our nose,
requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider.
We would have huge noses with nose lips and
a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate
the additional structures. Now, we would really
be ugly! On second thought, it might be
interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips -
nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose
would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!

-- An excerpt from one of Rich's articles on the main site. I think I'd rather take my chances with choking...

[RickD]

One of the examples of "bad design" proposed
by Olshansky et al. is the human esophagus. At the bottom of the throat, the trachea (the
passage that leads to the lungs) enter the
esophagus. When you swallow food or water, a
structure called the epiglottis closes to cover
your trachea so that these materials do not go
into your lungs. The system does not work perfectly every time, as we have all
experienced when choking on food or water
that "goes down the wrong way." In some
instances, this choking can be life threatening.
Olshansky et al. suggest that a better design would be to have two separate tubes - one
leading from the nose directly into the lungs
and the second leading from the mouth directly
to the stomach. There are several problems with this "better"
design. First, to have two tubes in the neck
would require extra space and extra systems
(with the associated additional energy costs) to
maintain two structures. More importantly, it
would be very difficult to breathe when you get a sinus infection. Congestion in the nose would
be life threatening, since it would prevent or
severely restrict breathing, since the nose
would be the only way that air could enter the
lungs. There would also be the problem of
getting rid of liquid that accidentally enters the lungs. It would have to be pushed all the way
up to the nose and expelled there (make sure
you carry lots of tissue with you!). Under the
current system, it need only go to the top of the
trachea and the down the esophagus to the
stomach. The two tube design would also restrict the amount of physical activity that
humans could do. When we run, we take in air
through our mouths, since the larger opening
allows for a more rapid respiration rate. The
only way to allow for a large respiration rate
with one tube to the nose would be to greatly increase the size and openings in our nose.
Not only would this look ugly, but the larger
openings would present problems. Things
could enter into such large openings and have
direct access to your lungs (How would you like
to inhale a fly into your lungs?). Larger nasal passages would also reduce the temperature
of the air, since it could not be heated as
effectively (important for cold climates). Another
major problem would be speech and language.
We need to use our mouths and tongue in
order to produce speech. Air running over vocal cords, in the absence of a tongue, lips
and teeth, would only be able to produce a
very limited number of sounds (it might not
affect Rambo, but the rest of us would have a
difficult time communicating). Try it some time
(hold your mouth open and don't move your tongue as you attempt to communicate). Of
course the evolutionist might propose
additional structures in the nose (like a tongue,
lips and teeth-like structures). So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing
for a superior breathing apparatus. Our
trachea would continue up to our nose,
requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider.
We would have huge noses with nose lips and
a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate
the additional structures. Now, we would really
be ugly! On second thought, it might be
interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips -
nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose
would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!

-- An excerpt from one of Rich's articles on the main site. I think I'd rather take my chances with choking...

Good find, Vespetta. I can't believe I missed that article. It makes a lot of sense. How dare you bring logic into the debate?!?