This is part III iteration 2 of my pamphlet.
"The Argument from Imperfection"
Summary of the Argument:
Evolutionists often argue that the evidence of imperfection in nature
demonstrates the truth of evolution. They say that God wouldn't have
created imperfect creatures, but that evolution would be expected to
use any design that might, "come to hand".
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 "imperfections" might show the truth of
evolution (If one could show theologically that God wouldn't have created
"imperfect" creatures or allowed once perfect creatures to degenerate over
time.) 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" Professor of Paleontology
at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History 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.
Now it is not intuitive that effects this small can have a large
enough impact to be significant. How ironic that Darwin himself showed
that small effects accumulated over time can have a significant overall
impact.
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 this shows us an
interesting contrast. Evolution by natural selection is supposed to be an
extremely powerful process capable of producing organisms of vast complexity
and sophistication. In spite of this, an animal that might be expected to
evolve quickly (i.e. short generation times, preyed upon by a large number of
other animals, living in large numbers) fails to evolve something as simple
(comparitively speaking) as a good digestive system.
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