Recently, I blogged on David Barash's misguided attack on ID. Apparently, Barash's article sparked many letters in reply and PZ Myers has recently come to his defense. Myers tells us what Barash's real argument was about:

As is common, these writers completely misunderstand the argument from imperfections that Barash presents; they treat it as an argument for atheism, rather than evolution. It isn't. It can be used as an extremely hypothetical argument about the nature of god, I suppose, which is how these writers treat it and as Barash briefly mentions (admitting that these observations could be accounted for by a god of "incompetence or sheer malevolence"), but as an argument for evolution, this is irrelevant. These imperfections are seen as relics of our past history, and indicate that we did have a complex history"”we were not born as a species with no heritage from our forebears.

I'm not buying it.

Myers wants us to believe that Barash was making an argument for evolution instead of for atheism. But how exactly is this an argument for evolution? Was Barash saying that evolution predicts imperfections? My, now that's a bold prediction!

Myers props up Barash's argument by recasting it as an attempt to help us see the relics of our complicated past. Sure, I 'll buy that part. But why the emphasis on imperfection? Why not point to the hairs on my arm as a relic from the past? Or my tail bone? Why, among all the examples, does Barash focus on an imperfection that causes pain?

Y'see, there is much better evidence for human evolution that knees that wear out and prostate glands behind the bladder. What convinces me that humans evolved are such things as comparative anatomy (go watch the chimps at the zoo), comparative genomics, and something called the fossil record. If Barash is trying to make a case for evolution, why did he choose one that is a) so idiosyncratic and b) so easily misunderstood?

What you have in Barash's article is an argument for atheism disguised as an argument for evolution/against ID. One only needs to re-read the article and survey how Barash sets it up.

He sets the tone/context of the article by introducing us first to the Bridgewater Treatises, where in the 1800s, natural theologians argued that God made Nature perfect. This should immediately clue the reader that Barash is picking a fight with a particular theological viewpoint that existed almost two centuries ago. Barash thus comes to this whole topic with God on his mind. Of course, what newspaper would publish an argument against an outdated theology? So Barash needs to make it seem relevant:

Current believers in creationism, masquerading in its barely disguised incarnation, "intelligent design," argue similarly, claiming that only a designer could generate such complex, perfect wonders.

Barash is just another dime-a-dozen critic who confuses creationism and ID. What makes his confusion noteworthy is that it leads him into the tremendous blunder of thinking that ID proposes that Nature should be perfect. Er"¦..who said that?

So in Barash's mind, he is picking a fight with a form of theology two centuries old by imagining it still exists today. This helps us understand his basic argument:

But the living world is shot through with imperfection. Unless one wants to attribute either incompetence or sheer malevolence to such a designer, this imperfection points incontrovertibly to a natural, rather than a divine, process, one in which living things evolved.

At this point, it becomes clear that Myers' interpretation is flawed. Barash is not pointing to relics of our complicated past. That's Myers argument. Barash is arguing against natural theology. He is arguing that we must either posit a stupid or evil designer, or recognize these imperfections as pointing to a natural process. The imperfections are only relevant because ID is supposed to predict perfection. That's why Barash designed his essay so that it begins with the Bridgewater Treatises.

Is it a coincidence that the majority of Barash's examples of imperfection can be tied to disease and pain? Of course not. That's where the "sheer malevolence" of the designer is supposed to come in – Barash's whole argument is simply an extension of the Argument From Evil. And this should not be surprising given that his mind hears "God" when his eyes read "Intelligent Design."

After going through his examples, Barash makes the theological nature of his argument perfectly explicit:

And what about the theological implications? If God is the designer, and we are created in his image, does that mean he has back problems, too?

But Barash's argument also applies to theistic evolution "“ in what way is God the Creator excused from charges of either incompetence or sheer malevolence? Why would such a Creator use a such a sloppy process like evolution to create us, a process that would cobble us together with bad backs and painful birthing processes? In His omniscience, why couldn't this Creator foresee that evolution would cause us so much pain and thus choose to create us differently? Sorry, but the very essence of Barash's argument remains intact even if the theist embraces evolution as the means of our becoming.

It's simple – Barash is making a anti-religious argument because he thinks ID is religion.

There is one final point worth mentioning. August Berkshire is the Associate President of Minnesota Atheists and a member of the board of directors of the Atheist Alliance. So what? Well, he gives a sermon for atheism that can be found at:

www.mnatheists.org/articles/ atheism/no_god_of_the_gaps.pdf

There is an interesting point of convergence in the arguments of Berkshire the Atheist and Barash the ID Critic.

Barash writes:

Current believers in creationism, masquerading in its barely disguised incarnation, "intelligent design," argue similarly, claiming that only a designer could generate such complex, perfect wonders. But the living world is shot through with imperfection"¦"¦ It is simply deplorable that the prostate gland is so close to the urinary system that (the common) enlargement of the former impinges awkwardly on the latter"¦ the vas deferens (which carries sperm) became looped around the ureter (which carries urine from kidneys to bladder), resulting in an altogether illogical arrangement that would never have occurred if, like a minimally competent designer, natural selection could have anticipated the situation.

Berkshire writes:

The first prediction is that a perfect god will make no design mistakes. However, there are a number of poorly designed systems, as evolution, but not creationism, would predict. For example: In men, the urinary tract runs through the prostate gland. As men get older, the prostate gland can enlarge, shutting off urine flow, and causing death. It would have been very simple to run the urinary tract around the prostate gland "“ and any good plumber would have done so.

Gee, now how would anyone ever get the impression that Barash's anti-ID article was an argument for atheism in disguise.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 28th, 2005 at 7:32 am and is filed under The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.