pamphlet Part III

vandewat@seas.ucla.edu
Wed, 20 Dec 1995 15:16:44 -0800 (PST)

Greetings and Salutations,

This is part III iteration 1 of my pamphlet.

"The Argument from Imperfection"

Summary of the Argument:

This argument was best summarized by Stephen Jay Gould, it's leading proponent:

The second argument-that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution-
strikes some people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be
most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed
by some organisms-the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that
cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely.
But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural
selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past
history-the evidence of descent-is the mark of evolution.

Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of
descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type
this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all
inherited them from a common ancestor? ** An engineer, starting from
scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the
large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended
from a common ancestor on this island continent? Marsupials are not
"better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by
placental animals imported by man from other continents. . . . (As cited
in Johnson, 1993)

(** Note that the argument from homology is not addressed in this Section.)

Problems:

The fundamental problem with this argument is that it requires a super
-human level of understanding. If God were supposed to create each creature
for "maximum survivability", then it is true that "imperfections" would show
the truth of evolution. But what if God created each creature to serve
purposes other than mere survival? In that case, the only way to determine
the suitability of each design would be to know all of the purposes for which
it was created. Can an "imperfection" be desirable? An illustration may
here prove useful.

In a PBS special entitled, "In the Beginning" a gentleman consulted as
an evolutionary expert (Leonard Kristalka) cited the rabbit's digestive system
as an example of imperfection in nature. The rabbit's digestive system,
evidently, is so bad that rabbits are sometimes forced to eat their own feces.
The question is, could there be a reason for such an imperfection?

One reason for the poor quality of the rabbit's digestive system might
be that a creature with a bad digestive system will leave nutrient rich feces.
If other creatures in an ecosystem use rabbit feces as fertilizer (plants) or
as a breeding ground (certain insects), then rabbit feces might serve a role
in the ecology.

Some evolutionists will argue that effects of this kind are too small
to be significant. How ironic that it was Darwin himself that proved small
effects accumulated over a long period of time could have a significant effect.
Darwin's last book was on the role of earthworms in turning the soil. In
that book, he demonstrated that earthworms could bury large rocks if given
enough time. In trying to argue that ecological effects are too small to
be the reason for imperfections in certain designs, evolutionists are trying
to have it both ways. They want to argue that small effects accumulated over
sufficiently long periods of time can create the most spectacularly complex
mechanisms known to man, but they also want to argue that small ecological
effects accumulating over time cannot be the reason for the imperfections of
design.

A second reason for the rabbit's digestive system might be the fact
that rabbits with a bad digestive system will have to eat more food than
rabbits with a good digestive system. More food at the same rate of intake
means more time spent foraging for food. More time spent foraging for food
means more time exposed to predators. If an intelligent designer purposed to
create an ecosystem and needed a creature to be at the bottom of the food
chain, might it not be desirable for such a creature to have a poor digestive
system? If it did not have a poor digestive system, it would stay safe in a
burrough rather than go out and eat. It is interesting to note that a creature
chosen for such a role must also have a high reproductive rate and rabbits are
known for their fecundity.

If the rabbit's digestive system does have the effect of increasing the
amount of time rabbits are exposed to predators, then evolutionists have a
problem. How is it that rabbits have such a poor digestive system when they
are one of the most preyed upon mammals on earth? If evolution by natural
selection can produce efficient digestive systems, then it certainly should
have done so in the case of the rabbit.

Conclusion:

Is it humanly possible to explain the use of every organ in every
creature that God created? Obviously not. The fact that the human
understanding of individual organisms and entire ecosystems is extremely
limited, however, makes the argument from imperfection extremely unconvincing.
Add to this idea the idea that some imperfections are inconsistent with a
Darwinian struggle for survival and it is clear that the argument from
imperfection suffers from serious defects.

In Christ

robert van de water
associate researcher
UCLA

P.S. Does anyone Know Leonard Kristalka's credentials?