Ungrateful Evolutionist Grouches About the Human Body

Posted on February 16, 2013 in Bible and Theology, Darwin and Evolution, Dumb Ideas, Health, Human Body, Intelligent Design, Mammals, Philosophy of Science

If an evolutionist can’t blame God for an alleged poor design, all he can blame is Darwin.

PhysOrg and Live Science both broadcast the anti-ID rants of Bruce Latimer (anthropologist at Case Western Reserve University) and Alan Mann (Princeton) at a recent AAAS conference on human evolution.  They claim the human body is poorly designed, despite being the dominant primate form in the world today, successful at conquering everything from the deep sea to outer space.

Bad backs, dangerous childbirths, sore feet and wisdom teeth pains are among the many ailments humans face from evolution, researchers say.

In an evolutionary sense, humans are by far the most successful primates on the planet, with a world population close to 7 billion. Humanity owes this success to a number of well-known adaptations, such as large, complex brains and walking upright on two feet. However, there are downsides to these advances as well.

We’re dealing with the scars of human evolution,” anthropologist Alan Mann at Princeton University told LiveScience.

One would think that such success would generate awe for human design, but no: PhysOrg led off with Latimer’s anti-design sentiments:

If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved,” Latimer said. “Unfortunately, we can’t go back to walking on four feet. We’ve undergone too much evolutionary change for that—and it is not the answer to our problems.”

If Latimer wants to start a new evolutionary path to four-footedness, he could certainly lead the way.  Live Science tossed in an anti-ID comment from another ungrateful anthropologist:

If you want to look for examples of how we’re not the result of intelligent design, you don’t have to go far — just look at the complicated, uncomfortable way we have babies,“anthropologist Karen Rosenberg at the University of Delaware told LiveScience.

Both articles pointed to human walking and running motions as examples of poor design, contradicting all the good things Daniel Lieberman had said about those adaptations (see 11/18/2004 entry).  “Evolution doesn’t produce perfection,” Mann said, thus employing a false dichotomy, because intelligent design theory never claims perfection as evidence of design (or non-perfection as refutation of design).  The literature on dysteology as it relates to ID is extensive, but apparently unknown to these anthropologists.  Besides, evolution cannot even approach the sophistication of the human body—let alone perfection—if survival is the only value in life.

How Latimer could claim, therefore, that “The original design specs for the human body were designed to last about 40 years” is quizzical (besides his redundancy). “Darwinian evolutionary theory” certainly knows nothing of design specs.

Live Science reporter Charles Choi employed the long-debunked evolutionary “march of progress” icon with the caption, “Turns out, we have human evolution to thank for our bad backs, dangerous childbirths, sore feet and wisdom teeth pains.”

Do you see what ingrates the evolutionists are?  If they don’t like their bodies, let them go on a fitness program or walk on all fours.  Watch Olympic athletes and try to say the human body is poorly designed.  Without even referring to theological arguments about the Fall and the curse (including pain in childbirth), we can debunk the evolutionists’ own positions.  They spoke of evolutionary theory in an effort to determine the truth about human history.  Well, if evolutionary theory is a product of evolution, they have no grounds on which to say it is true.  Give these ingrates the gong and move along.

 

6 Comments

Charles February 16, 2013

This is rich.

If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved.”

And evolution produced this engineer?

Yah Coyote February 16, 2013

The Ultimate Engineer (YESHUAH MESSIAH) built that first human Adam and the design has done all the incredible things you mentioned in your article and many more. Designed the Internet by which I am making this comment. Just think what we might have accomplished had the apple not been so appealing. Fortunately we will have a second chance provided by the Designer and Builder HIMSELF, and HE used a simple wooden instrument of torture to provide abundant eternal life.

Donald Holliday February 16, 2013

I wonder what Tim White thinks of Latimer ?

I wonder what Philip S. Skell thinks of Latimer ?

Oh yeah, here it is: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

rockyway February 16, 2013

1. Maybe they can tell us how to design a back that never gets sore, or feet that never get sore. (As an aside; Isn’t pain supposed to have ‘evolved’ to send signals to the brain? i.e. isn’t it supposed to be a good thing?)

How anyone who has ever watched gymnastics at the Olympics can speak of the human back being ”badly” constructed I don’t know.

People who walk around in high heels and silly shoes, weigh far too much, (etc.) should not be blaming evolution (or God) for bad backs or sore feet.

One has to chuckle at the idea of magazine writers complaining of having sore backs and sore feet. I guess it’s from all the heavy lifting they do.

2. “We’re dealing with the scars of human evolution…”
– the scars of evolution, or the scar of evolution?

3. “If you want to look for examples of how we’re not the result of intelligent design, you don’t have to go far — just look at the complicated, uncomfortable way we have babies…“

- Is there some way having babies could not be complicated? Is there some way it could be uncomfortable? Good grief. (If you’ve ever seen the video by David Menton on the female reproductive system you have some idea of what a wonder it is. No human engineer could have even dreamed of the complexity involved.) How people can denigrate God’s creation and then go ga ga over the latest bit of trash from Hollywood staggers me.

Recondo February 16, 2013

Thorns and thistles were designed along with complicated pregnancies (Genesis 3:16). Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they weren’t designed. Are they next going to claim that chemical weapons aren’t really designed because the effects are horrible?

Robert Byers February 16, 2013

They are wrong and ID people are too.
First the childbirth thing was deliberate. The bible says it was a punishment to change the women so birthing is more painful. Female animals do not have pain giving birth. only our women.

the wisdom teeth thing is explained by our diet changing after the flood. Switching newly to a meat diet arranged the teeth or led to problems eventually.
We were created to not eat meat and so our teeth be different.

Leave a Reply