Re: Design & Imperfection 1/2 (was NTSE #11)

Gene Dunbar Godbold (gdg4n@avery.med.virginia.edu)
Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:25:17 -0400 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that I originally delved into this thread as an
attacker of the position that examples of "bad design" signal the absence
of an omniscient, omnipotent God. I was not attempting to divine the
existence of such a being from the existence of engineered biological
"perfection".

I edited the following heavily to concentrate on the points I thought were
of particular importance.

According to Russell Stewart:
> I didn't mean to say "perfect", but rather "better". And there are
certainly many aspects of organisms' anatomy that could have been done
better.

GG.
I agree, and the whole biotechnology industry is predicated on the idea
that humans can make certain biological systems "better" in that they are
more useful for various and sundry commercial endeavors. Much of modern
medicine seeks ways to alleviate pathological conditions--conditions that
are not normally associated with human health and that are frequently
deleterious.

I think that this point made by Mr. Jones is quite important:
> >> SJ>The argument from imperfection assumes incorrectly that the Designer
> >> >has only one motive - engineering excellence:

> >> SJ>In fact, the argument from imperfection assumes without warrant that
> >> >we would infallibly know what was in the mind of the Designer:

RS.
> >> It only assumes a certain level of common sense. Surely an omnipotent
> >> being would be capable of that.

GG.
> >I think SJ is right. What do you mean by common sense?

RS.
> The ability to look at two different designs and say, "this one is
> clearly better". Again, for an example, I will use the differences
> in the retinal design of mammals and squids. Clearly having no blind
> spot is better than having a blind spot.

Speaking as a legally blind person Christian, I think that my
inability to see as well as most people is irrelevant to the purpose that
God has for me. According to the Christian scriptures, our earthly
purpose is to accept the salvation of God in the sacrifice of the
God-man Jesus Christ. You can do this without much in the way of body or
brains. As long as you have a will (which is rather immeasurable) you can
make this decision. The scriptures suppose a difference between man and
everything else. Man is "defined" as a being capable of enjoying a
particular relationship with God. Physical (and mental) attributes have
little to do with this relationship.

{snip}

RS.
> To make life a little better, a little more comfortable. If nothing
> more, that is a good enough reason.

I don't think God's purpose is to make us more comfortable in a physical
sense, no matter if that is what many of us would like. Sometimes
suffering serves good purposes. Sometimes comfort can lead to bad
situations.

-- ____________________________________________________________Gene D. Godbold, Ph.D.                     Lab:  804 924-5167Research Associate                         Desk: 804 243-2764Div. Infectious Disease                    Home: 804 973-6913Dept. Internal Medicine                    Fax:  804 924-7500MR4 Bldg, Room 2115      	   email: anselm@virginia.edu300 Park Place                                                 Charlottesville, VA 22908          """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""