Ungrateful Evolutionist Grouches About the Human Body
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.