So you want me to believe in Intelligent Design (ID)? First you’ll have to explain why the human appendix exists.
Mine landed me on an operating table around midnight a couple of weeks before my 4th year High School exams. If left alone, it would have burst, spreading infection throughout my peritoneum. The surgeon showed it to me after I had recovered enough to care; I recall it being black.
The appendix plays a role in cellulose digestion in some mammalian species. If however humans were really created by an intelligent designer, independent of all other creatures, with no evolutionary path between some other species with a useful appendix, and us, one has to ask: why create the human species with a useless and dangerous organ?
As Douglas Theobold has said:
If the appendix does have an important function that we have yet to find, it is a leading candidate for the worst designed organ in the human body. How nice if the appendix would just degenerate away after it is no longer needed, so it could never get infected and kill us needlessly.
A programmer might say that God ought to have noticed that the appendix was “unreachable code”, and so could be optimised away.
Perhaps ID actually denotes “Incompetent Design”.
It seems to me that we have two explanations for the existence of the human appendix:
- It serves a useful role in some other mammalian species, and in some of our ancestors, but does not do so in us.
- God created each of us with an appendix because he/she is not benevolent or not omnipotent.
If the Designer is not omnipotent, why is he/she/it in the business of universe and people engineering?
In Science, just one chink in the armour of a theory can bring it down. Not so for ID?
February 29, 2008 at 10:28 am |
I encourage you not to bother with Intelligent Design, but the appendix could exist to reboot the stomach with good bacteria after an illness like diarrhoea.
February 29, 2008 at 11:44 pm |
Hi Steve
I’m certainly not “bothering with” ID in the sense of giving it credibility but I am trying to say something about its absurdity.
I take your point though, and as I recall, the author I quoted also admits that the appendix may still have a function. But if so, it still seems to be a very poor “design”.
David
July 24, 2008 at 11:18 am |
The following article may provide an answer to your question.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0718appendix.asp
July 24, 2008 at 12:57 pm |
My earlier comment notwithstanding, I’m willing to accept that the Human Appendix may not have been the best choice to make my point. The 17 May 2008 New Scientist article “The old curiosity shop” makes a similar point to Evan’s reference re: a credible role for the Human Appendix. It then goes on to point out other more likely vestigial human organs, such as wisdom teeth, the tail bone (coccyx, a vestige of the mammalian tail), Darwin’s point (a cartilaginous bump on the outer ear), goose bumps.
September 17, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design, but I wonder why people are so hostile towards an alternative theory to evolution/natural selection. I have read Origin of Species, as well as works by Dobzhansky that focus on modern evolutionary synthesis or advances to neo-Darwinian synthesis. Some of the stuff Darwin concluded are laughable, but it is still an interesting read for anyone interested in history of science. Clearly, there are issues with the dominant theory in science as well. I wonder if it because there are more opportunities for scientists to prove/disprove theoretical developments in Evolution. Whereas ID cannot really be proven/disproven, the theory requires a leap of faith? A book that finds faults in Darwinian theory and its modern evolutionary synthesis is Michael Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution.” It seems to have some credence among people and isn’t creationist in any capacity. Anyway kind of cool to see this blog. It was a google hit!
September 17, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
Yeah I read some criticisms about Behe’s book. Many of them seem to attack him as a quack or argue that his conclusions are invalid. But I can’t get any information as to why they are invalid. I am really curious as to what makes his conclusions false.
September 18, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
Any alternative to Evolution must provide at least the same explanatory power. Scientists ultimately accept (which is not always to say “like”) that their theories are models of reality and are always at risk of being replaced if they fall short.
As the words of the LHC Rap (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM) suggest, if the Higgs Boson (the so-called God Particle) is not found by collisions in the LHC, and the Standard Model is shown to be wrong, that’s still progress. It’s just that we will need a new theory. But that’s Science.
Are you referring to this Michael Behe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe of irreducible complexity and Dover fame, and this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution ? As this page says: “Intelligent design has been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community and has been found by a United States district court to be a modern version of creationism.”
I have not read The Edge of Evolution and so cannot comment further upon it.
August 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
[...] are especially favored by critics of so-called “Intelligent Design creationism. The writers here and here make the standard argument: what kind of intelligence is it that produces a structure that [...]
September 6, 2009 at 3:04 am |
“A biological remnant no more” (appendix) Journal of evolutionary Biology Aug 2009 Dawin was wrong say the researchers.
September 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
Brett, I assume this is the article you are referring to above: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090820175901.htm ?
Re: your comment “Darwin was wrong say the researchers”:
1. He couldn’t be right about everything.
2. Being incorrect about the appendix doesn’t invalidate the notion of vestigial organs as an argument against intelligent design.
3. That is not what the article said. Here is some of what that article did say:
“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains Parker. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”
He also was not aware that appendicitis, or inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather due to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation. “Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands – a recipe for trouble,” says Parker.
That notion wasn’t proposed until the early 1900’s, and “we didn’t really have a good understanding of that principle until the mid 1980’s,” Parker said. “Even more importantly, Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water.”
September 6, 2009 at 3:28 pm |
No, of course Darwin could not be right about everything… But he was hardly correct about anything. (Although we could certainly talk about that all day).
And you are correct that this won’t change things in the debate of evolution vs ID. (I’m a creationist, not ID – there is a difference). What is called ‘vestigal organs’ is not a proof of anything, but an evidence. We all work with the same evidences and draw our own conclusions.
Also, re my comment ‘Darwin was wrong’… Those were not the words of the researchers. I took thosse words from ‘Science Daily’… “Writing in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Duke scientists…. conclude that Darwin was wrong”
I am a trucker with only a high school education, but don’t think vestigal organs is a good argument against creation. I have just recently looked at the arguments of Michael Shermer in ‘Why Darwin Matters’. He is promoting a belief more than he is being scientific.
September 6, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
Hi Brett
I think the assertion that Darwin was “hardly right about anything” warrants some explanation.
I was not suggesting that vestigial organs are a proof of anything, but that they can be used in arguments against the viability of the notion of purposive creation.
Further to that last point, it’s not clear to me in what ways intelligent design and creationism are different, apart from the people and money behind ID.
Re: “Darwin was wrong”, fair enough, but you did say “Darwin was wrong say the researchers.” I was just trying to add more context.
September 7, 2009 at 12:34 am |
Sure, I can try explain myself, (try) Because I believe in creation, and because I believe the evidence supports that, I think Darwins conclusions were wrong. He was correct about adaptation and variation. Thats it in a quick sentence, but feel free to get more specific with me if you wish. I enjoy a little homework on the subject
Yes, true on your comments about vestigal organs. Vestigal organs, fossils, cosmology and other fields can all be used as evidences against “the notion of purposive creation”. I think you are saying that nothing is PROOF? But, they are evidence? I think all the evidence can also be used to support the position of creation.
Whats the difference between Creationism and ID… Intelligent Design are people that believe the evidence points to design. (Evidence within the cell, etc) And that the evidence, points against abiogenesis and evolution.Of course 99% of these people believe in God, but don’t use God, or creation in their arguments.
Creationists believe that God created. Some creationist such as myself believe that God created everything in 6 literal days. Others believe God created but possibly over long periods of time. Hope I’ve explained the difference between the 2 camps, although likely often the arguments are the same.
Money behind ID?? I’m not sure about that. I think the big money is grants and research money provided by government. The ID scientist don’t ususlly get those grants. Also, churches don’t ususally support ID because the creation/ evolution debate sometimes causes devicevnous.
Brett
September 7, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
Thanks for your elaboration. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you were to say something about what you don’t believe to be the case, and why.
Re: proof and evidence, the resilience of Science is rooted in a willingness to change worldviews when the evidence strongly suggests that it should. No theory is ever safe from being cast aside if sufficient evidence mounts against it.
September 20, 2009 at 1:22 am |
You want me to say something “that I don’t believe to be the case”. hmmm … I’m not sure where to start… How about, “I don’t believe that there are vestigal organs in the body”. At the time of the scopes trial (1920?) vestigal organs was used as an evidence of evolution. There was about 180 items at the time considered non functional and they were only in our body as biological remnants. However, we now know the tonsils, spleen, coccyx,appendix etc all do have functions. Even if the function is not known ….. it is an evolutionary belief to call it vestigial