Ian Musgrave posted Entry 314 on July 7, 2004 01:30 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/313

For a group that claim their ideas to be driven by science, rather than religious ideology, the Paleyists turn up in religious settings far more often than scientific ones. The latest issue of Touchstone magazine is largely given over to “Darwin’s last stand”, and has many essays from Paleyist stalwarts.

Of interest is the essay by Discovery Institute Fellow Jonathan Witt, “The Gods must be tidy!”. In this essay, amongst other things, he blames “Darwinism” for bad art and architecture. There are a number of errors in the essay; once again we have anti-evolutionists completely misunderstanding the basis of evolutionary biology (and the dreary old Nazis get trotted out again). I can’t deal with all the errors in one short essay, so I will concentrate on some of the more interesting ones.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

But here I want to suggest that Darwinism—in which I include its DNA-inspired mutation, neo-Darwinism—has contributed to this will to ugliness not merely by underwriting a vision of the world as a godless accident, but also in the very way it critiques and thereby dismisses the idea of an Author and Designer of life.

I suppose it will do no good to explain that evolutionary biology does not see the world as an accident, that the evolution of organisms is a combination of variation (which is random with respects to the “needs” of an organisms) and selection (which is non-random). It will also do little good to point out, yet again, that evolutionary biology deals with only these topics, and biologists leave the Cosmos to Cosmologists. At various points through the essay Jonathan Witt uses “Cosmos” for biology.

The main point of Witt’s essay is to attack the concept that poor or “quirky” design is compatible with common descent and incompatible with an omnipotent designer. Note the omnipotent, as this gets skipped over when Jonathan Witt makes his argument. Many biological systems are kludged together Heath Robinson (or Rube Goldberg for Americans) devices, indirect contrivances cobbled together from historical necessity out of bits and pieces that did something completely different to their current task. They work, they may even work admirably well, but there is no sense that these contrivances are the result of an omnipotent designer. Instead they are the hallmark of natural processes constrained by history.

Central to Jonathan Witt’s counter argument is the concept that good engineering design is not the be all and end all of everything (and who would argue with that). However, he continually conflates “good design” and “tidiness”. He is particularly scathing about the “watch” analogy for the Universe. What this has to do with evolutionary biology is not entirely clear; this image was spawned in the debates between Newton and Lebniz. Newton’s original version of mechanics required that the universe needed to be intervened in (“wound up”) from time to time to keep it running. There was a rather intense debate over this, as from a theological point of view it was considered that an omniscient and omnipotent creator would have the ability to create a Universe that ran without constant tinkering. Laplace’s revisions to Newton’s mechanics removed the need for Newton’s Universe to be constantly tinkered with. The important thing to note is that this was a theological argument from well before Darwin or modern evolutionary biology.

No one in these times, be they physicist or theologian, would seriously countenance the idea that God needs to adjust planetary orbits periodically. The majority of biologists and theologians have likewise no quarrel with the idea that the biosphere does not need periodic tinkering with. Jonathan Witt is not amongst their number, however. He is dissatisfied with the “watch” metaphor (and remember it is a metaphor), and the idea that quirky or “bad” design is evidence against an omnipotent designer creating biological organisms.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

Critics of intelligent design tuck some idiosyncratic and highly dubious aesthetic presuppositions into the metaphor of the cosmos as watch. These include an overemphasis on tidiness, a de-emphasis on beauty…

This is of course very wide of the mark; the emphasis is on good design, not tidiness. Remember, the issue is that an omnipotent designer will make good designs, not designs that need constant fiddling with. A good watch should run flawlessly, not need to be disassembled and re-jigged every few days to keep working (1).

This does not ignore beauty; good engineering design is beautiful in many senses, in and of itself. Watches are beautiful, and if mere human designers can make beautiful watches that also have good design, an omnipotent designer should be able to as well. Note that this only holds for omnipotent designers, if biological organisms have been designed by the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation, then all bets are off. Mind you, even given computer programmers’ tendency to leave comments and old bits of code in, the fact that the human genome has almost as many broken genes as working genes (not to mention lots of leftover chunks of viruses) must give one pause.

Jonathan Witt goes on about beauty a fair bit, it seems that he thinks that well designed engineering is not compatible with beauty (although its is hard to tell from the rather rambling nature of his essay). In a rather bizarre paragraph he seems to be equating evolutionary biology with a desire to rid the world of untidyness, including pandas. Now evolutionary biologists love the messy, blooming buzzing confusion of the natural world. Steven J Gould, Richard Dawkins, Steven Jones, Richard Fortey and many others write warmly and with affection of the natural world and its untidy inhabitants, including pandas. The panda is the mascot of this very weblog. Evolutionary biologists are at the forefront of protecting pandas as their habitat is threatened by human incursion. Evolutionary biologists are the ones who first noticed and studied extinction seriously. Evolutionary biologists in general are the leading (intellectual) conservationists. They coined the term “biodiversity”, and the evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson made it into a household word.

Jonathan Witt does not seem to have grasped that you can point out that the features of the biological world are not the products of an omnipotent designer and still really appreciate the charming oddities of “quirky design” forced on organisms by history.

He briefly criticizes some of the classic “quirky design” examples, starting with the inverted vertebrate retina. You may remember that the vertebrate retina is wired “backwards”. That is the photoreceptors point to back of the retina, away from incoming light, and the nerves and blood vessels are on the side of the incoming light, this means that any image formed on the vertebrate retina has to pass though layers of blood vessels and ganglion cells, absorbing and distorting the image. To get decent visual acuity, vertebrates must focus light on a small patch of retina where the blood vessels and nerves have been pushed aside, the fovea. This patch must be small because of the nutrient requirements of the retina. Also, the construction of the vertebrate retina means that blood vessels and nerves must pass through the retina, creating a “blind spot”. Finally, the “backwards” retina means that vertebrates have a high risk of retinal detachment. Altogether this shows that having the nerves and blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors is less than optimal design.

Now consider the eye of squids, cuttlefish and octopi. Their retinas are “rightway round”, that is the photoreceptors face the light, and the wiring and the blood vessels facing the back (2). Squid and octopi have no blind spot, they can also have high visual acuity. Cuttlefish have better visual acuity than cats (3) and because of their “rightway round” retinas, this level of acuity covers nearly the entire retina (2,3) unlike vertebrates where it is confined to a small spot. 

This is a prime example of historically quirky “design”, the vertebrate retina is backwards because the development of the retina was first elaborated in rather small chordates, where issues of acuity and blind spots were non-existent, all subsequent vertebrates got stuck with this design. Vertebrates do very well with the limitations of the design of the eye, but it is clear that this is no system a competent designer would make (Sirius Cybernetic Corporation caveat). Jonathan Witt references this page at ARN and dismisses the quirky design in one sentence.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

Never mind for the moment that it has been clearly demonstrated that the backward wiring of the mammalian eye actually confers a distinct advantage by dramatically increasing the flow of oxygen to the eye

Unfortunately for his argument, this statement is completely wrong. Underneath the photoreceptors is a layer of pigment and pigment cells (the squid, cuttlefish and octopus have similar arrangements), this layer of pigment absorbs stray light that is not caught by the photoreceptors, which might reflect back and fuzz the image. Unfortunately, the absorbed photons are re-radiated as heat, and in terrestrial vertebrates this can heat the retina up enough to cause damage (4). Fast blood flow through the tissues below the pigment layer cools it down (4). This is yet another area where vertebrate design is flawed, with the fragile photoreceptors hard up against the source of the damaging heat. In squids, octopi and cuttlefish, the pigment layer is below the photoreceptors, in an area of dense blood vessels (2). Of course, the question of why fish, which have more species than all terrestrial vertebrates combined, must suffer with a backwards retina so that terrestrial vertebrates can have high blood flows to an area that wouldn’t need them if the system was designed right in the first place, is never addressed. This is hardly the “brilliant piece of design” that Jonathan Witt claims.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

Do we really wish to substitute the exuberantly imaginative, even whimsical designer of our actual universe for a cosmic neat freak?

No, but that is not the argument, it is neither imaginative nor whimsical to design a system where you lose some of your visual field completely, and have to do most of the work with a tiny hole scraped out over the photosensors. To repeat, the vertebrate eye does very well indeed, but it is a messy kludge. The fovea is a cute trick to squeeze greater acuity out of a flawed design, but even octopi do it better.

Even the poor pandas get a look in. Steven Jay Gould, in his essay “The Panda’s Thumb”, points out that many biological systems “… were not made by an ideal engineer; they are jury-rigged from a limited set of available components.” Note again Gould was talking of an ideal, omnipotent designer, with none of the limitations of us mere mortals. Gould also noted that the funny solutions may work very well indeed, as he points out with the enlarged wrist bone, the radial sesamoid, that the panda uses for a “thumb”.  Jonathan Witt seems to have ignored this when reading Gould’s writing. And he goes off the rails when trying to deal with the biology.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

By Gould’s account, the panda’s thumb makes a fine peeler for bamboo, the panda’s principal food, and investigation may demonstrate that it is actually superior to an opposable thumb for such work.

Yes, the panda’s enlarged wrist bone works well, it is still a kludge used because the panda’s real thumb is unavailable. Note that the issue is not about “opposable thumbs”, but about thumbs per se. Many mammals have non-opposable thumbs, and use them well (eg bats), but Jonathan Witt carries on as if only opposable thumbs are any use.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

If an intelligent designer designed the world, did he not think of the opposable thumb until after he designed the panda? And was he too tired to go back and upgrade that poor panda?”

Thumbs have been around for long before pandas, and pandas have a real thumb, but it is part of the panda’s hand now as just another finger/claw, and they use the modified wrist bone instead. This basic misunderstanding of the science involved surfaces time and time again. Another piece of “quirky design” is seen in panda feet. The panda’s feet have an enlarged anklebone — you guessed it, the enlarged anklebone is the counterpart to the enlarged wrist bone that forms the panda’s thumb. The anklebone is not used for grabbing bamboo, it only exists as a by-product of the mutations that enlarged the panda’s sesamoid bone in the wrist.

Jonathan Witt wrote:

The Yugo, I’m told, was a badly designed automobile, but no sane person would argue that with all its problems, it wasn’t designed.

True, but no sane person would argue that an omnipotent creator designed it either. Similarly, no one would argue the vertebrate eye, the panda’s “thumb” or the human male inguanal nerve was designed by an omnipotent designer. Jonathan Witt may wish to argue that the panda was designed by the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation, who every million years or so turn up to tinker with their designs, but I seriously doubt that the conservative Christians of Touchstone will agree with him.

Witt sings the praises of a witty, creative, exuberantly imaginative, even whimsical designer. However, creativity and imagination are not revealed in the kludges that are the vertebrate eye and the pandas “thumb”. Of course, we can choose to see design in everything, so I would like to use a poem by Robert Frost as a coda for those desperately seeking design.

Design
I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On the white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth-
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches broth-
A snow-drop spider, a flower like froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to apall?—
If design govern in a thing so small.

Notes and references:
(1) If we were to represent the history of metazoan life on this planet as one year, most life forms get re-jigged every day.
(2) Matsui S, Seidou M, Horiuchi S, Uchiyama I, Kito Y. Adaptation of a deep-sea cephalopod to the photic environment. Evidence for three visual pigments. J Gen Physiol. 1988 Jul;92(1):55-66.
(3) Schaeffel F, Murphy CJ, Howland HC Accommodation in the cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). J Exp Biol. 1999 Nov;202 Pt 22:3127-34.
(4) Parver LM. Auker CR. Carpenter DO. The stabilizing effect of the choroidal circulation on the temperature environment of the macula. Retina. 1982, 2(2):117-20.
(5) Gould SJ, “The Pandas Thumb”, Pelican Books, 1980, pg 19-25, ISBN 0 14 02.2473 4
Many thanks to Steve Reuland, Nick Matzke and John Wilkins for helpful suggestions.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #4633

Posted by Andrew on July 7, 2004 7:33 AM (e)

Witt’s essay is actually excellent ammunition for those of us who believe that ID is, in principle, unfalsifyable. Witt’s claims that even the most idiotically designed objects are nonetheless evidence for design is outstanding proof of what we’ve suspected all along: to IDists, everything is evidence for design. Gee, that’s useful.

Comment #4640

Posted by ck on July 7, 2004 8:25 AM (e)

The Yugo, I’m told, was a badly designed automobile, but no sane person would argue that with all its problems, it wasn’t designed.

Maybe that’s because a car can’t reproduce?

Comment #4641

Posted by anon on July 7, 2004 8:50 AM (e)

A question for Dr. Musgrave:

Is the pigment layer in octopi well below the photoreceptors ? And if so, does this lead to a less efficient ‘mopping-up’ of stray light photons ?

In any case, it seems to me that these are two separate issues altogether–Even if Witt were right about the benefits of ‘greater blood flow’, it still doesn’t entail that retinal placement is vertebrates is good design.

Comment #4643

Posted by Dene Bebbington on July 7, 2004 9:24 AM (e)

Witt also wrote:

“Why should not the designer’s world entertain, amuse, and fascinate, as well as ‘work’?”

I wonder which one of these applies to the Panda abandoning one of its offspring. Maybe the designer has something against baby Pandas.

Comment #4645

Posted by PZ Myers on July 7, 2004 9:43 AM (e)

Maybe it’s a message from On High that we’re supposed to find infant animals starving to death or getting ripped apart by predators entertaining, amusing, and fascinating.

Comment #4646

Posted by Ed Darrell on July 7, 2004 10:20 AM (e)

Good stuff, Mr. Musgrave. Thank you.

Yugos? Perhaps the Designer* is a poorly paid, unhappy engineer in a small, dreary satellite to a communist dictatorship. That would explain why so many life-forms demonstrate Yugo-like engineering.

* I think the designer needs an appellation. I often call the designer “the Wilber Force.”

Comment #4649

Posted by andrew ti on July 7, 2004 10:57 AM (e)

At what point in stretching the argument that the designer is whimsical and entertaining as well as omnipotent can we ask why this unknowable omnipotent designer wouldn’t merely start the universe spinning in a certain trajectory and let the necessary by-product that is life evolve out of these starting conditions? Doesn’t Witt think the designer is powerful enough to do such a thing?

Comment #4651

Posted by anon on July 7, 2004 12:57 PM (e)

Isn’t Witt’s contention about the superior design of the mammalian eye based on a false premise ? He assumes that the heat-dissipating choroidal blood flow rate wouldn’t be possible if the retinal blood supply was the ‘right-way’.

Comment #4653

Posted by rubble on July 7, 2004 1:36 PM (e)

Ian Musgrave wrote:

Evolutionary biologists are the ones who first noticed and studied extinction seriously.

Not quite. The first to note extinctions was Cuvier, who was not an evolutionary biologist.

Comment #4658

Posted by Nick on July 7, 2004 4:09 PM (e)

rubble,

Not quite. The first to note extinctions was Cuvier, who was not an evolutionary biologist.

You have certainly got a point (see the UCMP page on Cuvier). However, when I read this I was thinking of the history of conservation biology, concerned with the extinction of modern species – Cuvier was, to my knowledge, discussing fossils.

Extinction of modern organisms was occasionally noticed, especially on islands (by Darwin and Wallace for sure, but probably before as well) – but the recognition that humans are, right now, causing a round of mass extinctions is essentially a 20th-century thing as far as I know. See this quite useful page on the early awareness of extinction. Recognition that modern extinction was widespread and a big problem is generally attributed first to Darwin’s co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, e.g. in Island Life (1881) he wrote,

The kind of knowledge [of world flora and fauna] is of very slow growth, and it is still very imperfect; and in many cases it can never now be obtained, owing to the reckless destruction of forests, and with them of countless species of plants and animals.

…and in 1863 Wallace famously wrote:

… In dwelling upon this subject–which I trust I have succeeded in making intelligible–my object has been to show the important bearing of researches into the natural history of every part of the world upon the study of its past history. An accurate knowledge of any group of birds or of insects, and of their geographical distribution, may assist us to map out the islands and continents of a former epoch; the amount of difference that exists between the animals of adjacent districts being closely dependent upon preceding geological changes. By the collection of such minute facts alone can we hope to fill up a great gap in the past history of the earth as revealed by geology, and obtain some indications of the existence of those ancient lands which now lie buried beneath the ocean, and have left us nothing but these living records of their former existence.

It is for such inquiries the modern naturalist collects his materials; it is for this that he still wants to add to the apparently boundless treasures of our national museums, and will never rest satisfied as long as the native country, the geographical distribution, and the amount of variation of any living thing remains imperfectly known. He looks upon every species of animal and plant now living as the individual letters which go to make up one of the volumes of our earth’s history; and, as a few lost letters may make a sentence unintelligible, so the extinction of the numerous forms of life which the progress of cultivation invariably entails will necessarily obscure this invaluable record of the past. It is, therefore, an important object, which governments and scientific institutions should immediately take steps to secure, that in all tropical countries colonised by Europeans the most perfect collections possible in every branch of natural history should be made and deposited in national museums, where they may be available for study and interpretation.

If this is not done, future ages will certainly look back upon us as a people so immersed in the pursuit of wealth as to be blind to higher considerations. They will charge us with having culpably allowed the destruction of some of those records of Creation which we had it in our power to preserve; and while professing to regard every living thing as the direct handiwork and best evidence of a Creator, yet, with a strange inconsistency, seeing many of them perish irrecoverably from the face of the earth, uncared for and unknown.

It’s worth noting here that Wallace obviously saw no conflict between species being evolved and being Created. (It’s also worth noting that it is often neglected that Wallace here recommends collection of specimens as the solution to biodiversity – this is still occasionally suggested but E.O. Wilson and others have argued forcefully that a species’ existence merely in a museum (or a zoo, freezer, etc.) is only barely better than extinction.

Comment #4659

Posted by Jim Harrison on July 7, 2004 4:22 PM (e)

The rabbis noticed that the Hebrew word for create (bara) can only be properly used to refer to divine creativity because whatever God did in the beginning was both unprecedented and unrepeatable. This theological point has the advantage of ruling out appeals to the argument from design.

Anyhow, God cannot be understood as a watchmaker. There aren’t an even number of days in a year. Therefore, the solar system wasn’t designed to keep time.

Comment #4660

Posted by Ian Musgrave on July 7, 2004 4:55 PM (e)

anon wrote:

Is the pigment layer in octopi well below the photoreceptors ? And if so, does this lead to a less efficient ‘mopping-up’ of stray light photons ?

No, the pigmentation is at roughly the same level.

In any case, it seems to me that these are two separate issues altogether–Even if Witt were right about the benefits of ‘greater blood flow’, it still doesn’t entail that retinal placement is vertebrates is good design.

Especially if the greater blood flow is only useful to a minority of vertebrates. It doesn’t help fish.

anon wrote:

Isn’t Witt’s contention about the superior design of the mammalian eye based on a false premise ? He assumes that the heat-dissipating choroidal blood flow rate wouldn’t be possible if the retinal blood supply was the ‘right-way’.

Well, he completely misunderstands the reason for the increased choroidal blood flow, so I would be careful about implying what Mr. Witt assumes. However, the original article suggests that this could only happen “wrong way round”, whereas the octopi etc have adequate blood vessles in their pigment layer to do the same job (and surely an omnipotent designer could work out additional mechanisms to protect the retina).

Cheers! Ian

Comment #4695

Posted by anon on July 7, 2004 9:34 PM (e)

Dr. Musgrave:

Thank you for the reply. Your article indeed makes clear that Mr. Witts’ explaining away the imperfection of the mammalian eye leads (inescapably) to the conclusion that imperfection exists in the fish eye, given the lack of high choroidal blood flow in the latter.

I haven’t been able to access the article cited by Mr. Witt, but one doesn’t need omnipotence to suggest mechanisms which could enhance heat dissipation in the pigment layer of terrestrial vertebrates, even with the ‘right-way’ arrangement. Even if there is a greater need for heat dissipation in terrestrial vertebrates (compared to octopi, fish, etc.), a simple passive mechanism of greatly increased vascularization of the pigment layer itself could do the job.

As others have suggested in the comments, Mr. Witt renders ‘design theory’ capable of explaining everything; which is to say, nothing at all is explained.

Comment #4699

Posted by steve on July 7, 2004 9:47 PM (e)

Intelligent Design Theory, Condensed version:

“Whatever the data shows, God did it.”

Comment #4716

Posted by T. Russ on July 8, 2004 2:46 AM (e)

Evolutionary Biology Theory, Condensed version:

“Whatever the data shows, evolution did it.”

Comment #4718

Posted by rick pietz on July 8, 2004 7:33 AM (e)

Actually, the problem with this debate is that both sides are arguing on false premises. Not your fault, Witt, by constantly referring to ‘the designer’ leads you to astray.

Actually, I’m part of the design team. See, you probably would get consistently better designs, but Jenny is always adding crap to the design. You know, “well, why don’t we add this(?)” or “I think it would look better w/ more legs” or, “why don’t we make this one fly(?)”. And since she’s sleeping w/ the Design Team Leader, well, we always have to include her stupid points in what otherwise would have been brilliant designs.

So, blame Jenny (you probably get emails from her about her web cam) for those design ‘flaws’, and a team leader who can’t keep his member in his shorts.

Rick Pietz
Senior Member
Earth Life Form Design Team

PS I’m so tired of having to turn out shoddy work, I’ve asked to be reassigned to design life for other planets.

Comment #4720

Posted by Ian Menzies on July 8, 2004 7:49 AM (e)

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'quote'

Comment #4729

Posted by T. Russ on July 8, 2004 10:56 AM (e)

Ian:
Of course it does…
It can’t not.

Thanks for proving my point.

Comment #4741

Posted by Andrew on July 8, 2004 12:31 PM (e)

*sigh* More idiot creationist trolls come out of the woodwork.

Obviously evolution is falsifiable. If the data were to show, say, human and dinosaur footprints in the same strata, or bizarre hybrids between species (say, a pegasus or a griffin), then evolutionary theory as we know it would be convincingly disproven.

Comment #4755

Posted by Bob Maurus on July 8, 2004 5:33 PM (e)

Damn, Andrew, you mean pegasus and griffons aren’t potential transitionals? And what about centaurs - they sure look like a transitional to me.

Comment #4762

Posted by Russell on July 8, 2004 6:57 PM (e)

What but design of darkness to APPALL, I think.

Comment #4780

Posted by Peter on July 9, 2004 4:06 AM (e)

http://GodlessAccident.com is inspired by this Panda’s Thumb article.

I would like to announce the creation of a new web site dedicated to the exploration of the Godless Accident that seems to be the simplest explaination for the existance of the known objective Universe where we find ourselves. Enjoy.

Comment #4781

Posted by Peter on July 9, 2004 4:12 AM (e)

http://GodlessAccident.com is inspired by this Panda’s Thumb article.

I would like to announce the creation of a new web site dedicated to the exploration of the Godless Accident that seems to be the simplest explaination for the existance of the known objective Universe where we find ourselves. Enjoy.