Literature

Robert Deyes

The molecular basis of sight is as complex as it is beautiful with interactions between proteins called transducins, phosphodiesterases, ion channels and pumps converting the original photon of light that reaches the eye into a signal that the brain can process (Ref 1). Studies have also revealed an added luxury of sight - self-repair and self-correction of optical aberration (Ref 2). A team of scientists at Cornell heading the study showed how, through neuronal feedback loops linking the eye to the brain, the brain could compensate for at least three different types of visual aberration - a finding that lead the head of the study, Cornell University professor Howard Howland to conclude that, "visual acuity is a result of various component parts 'wanting' to see better [. . .] able to sense aberrations and to change shape and function" (Ref 2). It thus seems rather paradoxical that some should come to the conclusion that complex organs such as the eye are, "not the work of some great composer but of an insensible drudge - an instrument, like all others, built by a tinkerer" (Ref 3).

A variety of feedback mechanisms mean that we see better than we might expect (graphic source here)

Why is it that prominent Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins reject purposeful design in the biological realm even though such a realm, by their own admission, exhibits design and provides every indication having been designed (Ref 4)? A look at Darwin's own reasons for rejecting design provides an important clue. According to Dawkins, Darwin's loss of faith in a purposeful designer came partly from his observation of the 'degoutant' in the natural world (Ref 4). Considering the digger wasp as a prime illustration of the macabre habits of nature, Dawkins recounts how these creatures lay their eggs within the bodies of other insects upon which the emergent larvae consequently feed (Ref 4). The female digger wasps guide their stings so precisely into their prey that their victims become irreversibly paralyzed but do not die (Ref 4). This scenario, according to Dawkins, is the best evidence that nature is not cruel but only pitilessly indifferent to the well being of its members (Ref 4). In Darwin's eyes, it was difficult to admit that an omnipotent and beneficent God could design something so savage and unappealing (Ref 4). Unfortunately for Darwin, in this instance he allowed his judgment to be clouded by his own subjective expectations of what the Judeo-Christian Creator would and would not do. In reference to the Ichneumonidae, distant cousins of the killer wasps, for example, he wrote,

"I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars." (Ref 5)

In the process of setting such an expectation, Darwin had unreasonably closed the door on design. Dawkins similarly concluded that the apparent roundabout and seemingly wasteful way through which the recurrent laryngeal nerve loops through the human body presented a perfect illustration of the limitation of evolutionary perfection and evidence for non-design (Ref 6). After all, no one in their right mind would have made a contraption so inefficient and imperfect (Ref 6). Inefficient and imperfect in whose eyes and why is this relevant?

An inference that a system is not designed simply because its design is not how we would expect it to be is not an inference based on scientific evidence but rather on personal bias. Clearly we have much to learn from nature if we are to reap the benefits of automated, self-correcting systems such as the eye; clearly we have a lot to learn from the designer whose systems we can identify throughout our natural world.

References

1. Michael J Behe (1996) Darwin's Black Box-The Biochemical Challenges to Evolution, 1st Edition, Simon and Schuster, New York; pp. 18-22
2. Better than Hubble, human eye can self-correct some optical faults.
3. Cornelius Hunter (2001) Darwin's God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 83
4. Richard Dawkins (1996), God's Utility Function, Phoenix, Orion Books Ltd, London
5. David Hull (1991), The God of the Galapagos, Nature, Volume 352, pp 485-486
6. Richard Dawkins (2003) A Devil's Chaplain, Weidenfeld and Nicolson London, UK, p.192

Copyright (c), Robert Deyes, 2007