Was The Human Body Designed?

The Argument from Life – particularly human life – is one of the go-to arguments for a theist’s insistence that a ‘designer’ exists. (Naturally, their own designer; never anyone else’s.) Teaching A&P and human anatomy such as I do, it is quite apparent that if anyone did design the human body, they did a piss poor job of it. When you consider all the things that can go wrong with the human body, to say nothing of the malfunctions that afflict the supposedly wondrous brain alone, and it seems odd to me that anyone would consider the human body designed. Sure, how the kidneys balance bodily fluids and monitor blood pressure is amazing, but the process is so convoluted that kidneys actually seem to have arisen by chance. Being undersigned, the human body is the biological equivalent of a ’71 Ford Pinto, a vehicle that would burst into flames if you happened to tap it with a feather.

As always, one should have evidence for their assertions. Fortunately, a lot of this work has been done for me. Allow me to point you in the direction of some articles that lament the failure of God’s design:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/watchmaker.htm (Funniest)

http://io9.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787 (Simple)

http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body (Simple)

https://www.quora.com/Science-of-Everyday-Life/What-are-the-greatest-flaws-of-the-human-body (Includes a section with comments from many biologists)

Granted, many of the articles speak of the same design flaws, and this is because the design flaws are so egregious that they can’t possibly go unnoticed. All of this points to the opposite of the Argument from Life, the Argument from Poor Design, indicating there is no designer.

There are two possible objections to these many foolish ‘designs.’ One is that the designer or designers did not see fit to design the human body for optimum efficiency. Human beings are well known for creating things that perform sub-optimally, but this is always due to either a lack of knowledge or resources, or is done out of plain ol’ greed. If we are anything like our designer(s), this says something about them. If it’s the case that we just don’t know the reason why we were created for sub-optimal performance, there is no reason to assume any such designer(s) had noble intentions. Even if it were the case that the designer(s) had designed some non-optimal features to improve the overall quality of the human body, this might indicate the incompetence of the designer(s), being or beings that are often regarded as omniscient. The worst flaw of all, death, has always afflicted human beings, even Adam and Eve upon their very creation! If human beings were designed, they might as well have been iPhones, with their obsolescence built in.

The second objection is that human disease is the result of sin.* This is quite obviously ridiculous since babies who are baptized have their sins taken away but still may become sick at a moment’s notice (or are baptized when sick, and are still sick immediately thereafter). People are also noticeable sick after confession, which supposedly asks for the forgiveness of sins. Of course, the designer(s) could never have allowed for sin, which even the dumbest engineer would have agreed seemed like a good idea.

[* Speaking from a fundamentalist Christian perspective]

“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?” Michael Shermer in Why Darwin Matters

Ah, yes, cognitive bias, one of the worst ‘design’ flaws of all.

I Don't Believe It

It is often asked of atheists, “What would it take to make you believe in God?” I think this is a fair question as atheists often have no compunction about asking exactly the opposite question. So I started thinking about all the common arguments for God’s existence and found that if one thinks about the various arguments even a little, they really make no sense. I just cannot accept any of the common arguments for the existence of a god and there doesn’t seem to be any argument for God that makes me say, “Well, maybe…” I’m not going to cover every argument for the sake of brevity, but give the basic argument and a quick response that gives the most superficial analysis, demonstrating the foolishness of the so-called proof.

Here are the most common arguments for the existence of God and why they fail in my view:

1.      “Because we had to come from somewhere (or) something had to create the universe.” The argument is circular; if everything has to have a cause, the first cause requires a cause as well. Even if there were a first cause, this says nothing about who or what the first cause is. For example, imagine a robot with the knowledge to build a robot exactly like itself. Should the built robot consider its builder a god? 

2.      “Because the universe appears as though it was designed (or) because the universe is fine-tuned for life.” First, assuming this is true, is says nothing about the designer or designers who again, must have been designed themselves. Two, the universe appears as ordered as it appears chaotic, but not designed. Arguments of design presuppose how any given person would design a universe from scratch. 

3.      “Because belief in God is intuitive.” No it is not. If someone grew up without anyone else around, it is unlikely they would have any conception of the supernatural unless they were seeking explanations for things they could not explain. Even if a belief in the supernatural is a proclivity hardwired into our genes, as it appears, particulars regarding belief are contingent upon a person’s immediate environment. 

4.      “Because morality has to come from somewhere.” Morality is driven by culture and is relative; there are no universal moral maxims that exist necessarily. Even if God did exist we couldn’t be sure such a being were moral since that being would either be able to say whatever they want as being moral (in which case God may be an evil dictator) or have a system outside of itself by which they recognize morality. 

5.      “Because miracles have happened.” There has never been an event shown to violate the known laws of the universe, which is the definition of a miracle. Self-appointed prophets have never been able to demonstrate they can perform a miracle. 

6.      “Because prophecies have come true.” These always just happen to be cases of interpretation. Notice that prophecies are never very specific, which helps them be ‘fulfilled.’ A prophecy is also not a prophecy when the future is written after an event has transpired. Of course, holy men are never that dishonest. 

7.      “Because people have reported visions of Heaven.” Delusions. Notice that visions of Heaven always reflect Heaven as it is imagined by the religion of the person claiming to have seen such a place. No one imagines seeing Heaven in a way that doesn’t include some information they have come across previously.

8.      “Because this life cannot be all there is.” Why not? Just because one has an unpleasant life is not reason to conclude there is a better life waiting for them after they are dead. It is also interesting that people who want to believe in Heaven due to the amount of suffering or evil they see in their Earthly life are often the same people willing to make others suffer when those others don’t adhere to the same beliefs. 

9.      “Because the Bible/Torah/Koran is historically accurate.” Even if some events in scriptures are accurate, this does not reflect an overall accuracy. Imagine a geology book before the discovery of plate tectonics; some of the information may be accurate but that doesn’t mean the book is accurate in its entirety. 

10.   “Because if you don’t believe and God does exist, you won’t like the consequences (aka Pascal’s Wager).” Accepting Pascal’s Wager has been shown to actually increase the likelihood that one may be wrong about God’s existence because the wager (as originally formulated) doesn’t account for other religions. Pascal’s Wager also works in the opposite direction, for if one finds out on their death bed that God does not exist, they have wasted their life believing in God. 

11.   “Because God is a perfect being.” (Often attributed to Thomas Aquinas) It is argued that God must exist since existence is entailed in the definition of a perfect being, which God is. But this is like saying the perfect woman exists simply because in order for her to be perfect, she must exist by virtue of what is included in the definition of a ‘perfect woman.’ Nonsense. If you think otherwise, please produce a perfect flying unicorn. 

12.   “Because I have experienced God (or God’s presence).” Problem with anecdotal evidence is that it makes everyone’s experience of God equally valid. If one says that they have experienced the Christian god’s presence, their claim to the truth about God is no more valid than someone who says they have experienced the presence of Allah or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Personal visions do not equal universal truths. 

13.   “Because there is good and evil.” This is a really dumb argument as even if we did have acts that were intrinsically good or evil, this says nothing about the origin of good and evil and nothing that prevents intrinsically good or evil acts from being rooted in our evolution. Moreover, if you consider some acts to be more or less good or more or less evil than others, how was it ever determined that anything was ever intrinsically good or evil in the first place?

14.   “Because human beings are special.” In what way? Because we build things by destroying other things? Because of our seemingly advanced communication skills that nonetheless breakdown when resources are at stake? Because we can imagine a god in our own likeness? Because we are conscious beings who cannot explain how they came to be this way (not yet anyway)? None of these questions points to human beings being any more special than any other animal in their own way. 

15.   Finally, here’s one I haven’t heard in a long time, probably because it is so dumb; the Argument from Aesthetic Perfection, “There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Therefore there must be a God. (You either see this one or you don't.)” I don’t see it, probably because there is nothing there.

As it stands, there appears to be no argument that can make me even consider the existence of a god because even if we did find some powerful being with vast knowledge and incredible powers, we couldn’t be sure the being wasn’t just a really smart alien with a really intimate knowledge of physics. Theists would do well to simply try to avoid using reason to argue for the existence of a god since no reason (so far) stands up to scrutiny. I have a lot more respect for people who say they believe in God simply because they want to, not because they claim to have proof. They don’t. And if that person then tells me there is nothing I could say to make them not believe in God, I’d call it even and we should all grab a drink together and chill the fuck out.

A Mind by Design?

The human mind; a fantastic, three pound swirl of protoplasm that appears to its users so complex, that it couldn’t have happened by accident. Or could it? As a hard determinist myself, I have trouble thinking anything happens by accident or as a matter of chance, except perhaps Miley Cyrus’ notoriety. That aside, the question is whether or not the mind (and to a larger extent the universe) was designed by an intelligence greater than that of its users. Certainly this raises the question as to who then would have designed the designer(s), but what we will focus upon here is whether or not the mind—and the universe—are designed at all.

            In wondering whether or not the human mind is a designed thing, we should ask ourselves how we identify things that are designed. Author George H. Smith put it this way, “Evidence of design are those characteristics not found in nature.” We can identify designed objects because we are familiar with the manner in which man-made objects look (or perhaps feel) when contrasted against natural objects and landscapes. We are familiar with the form of intentionally built things because we have either have been told they were built by other people, have seen them crafted by persons other than ourselves, or have constructed the object ourselves. Such differences are the basis for the myriad of words we use, such as in the case of “natural” versus “silicone.”

            So, there appears to be some fundamental flaws in terminology used by people who are not versed in philosophy or linguistics when they attempt to argue that the mind or the universe is designed. Might we ask whether or not the universe displays order instead? Now, if someone has never been in my friend Jessica’s apartment, they might be inclined to think that yes, the universe does display order. After all, there is no disputing the human mind’s fondness for pattern recognition (or as author Scott Adams would say, delusion generating). While it would be true enough to say that a design implies a designer, does the recognition of order imply an orderer? If the wind blows a deck of cards off a table and they all land face up, did the wind intend to do so? No, order is simply a manifestation of causality.

            It appears to me that whenever someone argues in favor of a designed mind or universe, it appears they are basing their conclusion upon the assumption that the mind appears the way it does because that’s the way they (or some other person) would design such a thing from scratch. That’s quite a leap for a mind that has no basis for comparison to what is not a mind or universe. Given that I cannot bake a decent batch of cookies from scratch, I would place a limit upon the extent to which I think a universe can be designed.

I’m also inclined to wonder what would happen to the assumptions of design theorists if they were to take into account certain anomalies of their premeditated universe. Do they consider the nature of black holes, where the known laws of physics break down? Do they wonder why humans don’t reproduce asexually, which is by far the most efficient means of reproduction? Why does hemoglobin, the molecule in blood that transports oxygen, have a greater affinity to carry carbon monoxide (a poisonous gas) than oxygen? Does the assumption of design proponents take into account the afore mentioned Ms. Cyrus? God, I’d hate to think of her celebrity as necessary to the design of the universe.

It is because of scientific knowledge—specifically the proliferation of technology/machinery—that we know that there is a difference between natural and man-made objects. And, within that context, there is a degree of complexity in designed things which helps us recognize the level of intelligence and the intentions of the designer, which is truly at the very heart of the design issue. As we all know, beavers build dams, but is any design theorist willing to concede that the designer of the human mind is an omnipotent, omniscient beaver? I wouldn’t bet my two front teeth on it.

The human mind is at times in order (after a cup of coffee) and at other times it is not (a woman in a shoe store). However, this is not the same as saying the mind is designed. [Considering all the things that can go wrong with the equipment, in an intentional universe there would at least be mechanics to fix the mind when it falters. Psychologists do not count, though, as they are all a bunch of Freuds.] The science of engineering, realizing the difference between what works and what doesn’t, is what has allowed us as humans to build things and identify what is a designed thing and what is not. Still, for those wishing to assume that there is a design to the universe, I leave them this humbling quote by John Stuart Mills—“Every indication of design in the universe is so much evidence against the omnipotence of the designer.”