The Sub-optimality argument against design points to certain apparently sub-optimal features of biological life (such as the Panda's Thumb) as evidence that ID is false. It is usually framed something like this: "look at biological features a, b, and c. These are obviously poorly designed, for reasons d, e, and f. Doesn't sound very 'intelligent' to me."
There are a few problems with this argument. First of all, it is not always obvious that the supposed sub-optimality really exists. All computer scientists and engineers know that good design involves balancing trade-offs. An immediate corollary is that designs are never optimized for everything. They are always optimized for something. So, the fact that pandas are not optimized for eating bamboo does not immediately imply that their design is sub-optimal. For example, über-pandas with opposable thumbs might deforest central China of bamboo, causing widespread ecological disaster.
Secondly, ID theorists (unlike most Creationists) are not committed to the proposition that absolutely everything is designed. There is lots of room within ID for the power of natural selection. In that sense ID supervenes on evolutionary theory: it is not a replacement, it just provides an additional mode of explanation that current evolutionary theory does not.
Last of all, this argument against design relies on an equivocation on the word "intelligent". Take Joe, a high-school drop-out who couldn't multiply fractions if his life depended on it. Is Joe "intelligent"? Well, not in one sense. He is certainly not smart. But he is intelligent in the sense important for ID, that he is an agent capable of purposeful action aimed at an end, and furthermore that these actions are distinguishable from chance and necessity. This is why an archaeologist's ability to distinguish rocks from tools used by ancient man has nothing to do with the optimality of the tool. sub-optimality arguments do present interesting challenges for certain brands of theism (i.e., Christianity), but not for ID per se.
There are a few problems with this argument. First of all, it is not always obvious that the supposed sub-optimality really exists. All computer scientists and engineers know that good design involves balancing trade-offs. An immediate corollary is that designs are never optimized for everything. They are always optimized for something. So, the fact that pandas are not optimized for eating bamboo does not immediately imply that their design is sub-optimal. For example, über-pandas with opposable thumbs might deforest central China of bamboo, causing widespread ecological disaster.
Secondly, ID theorists (unlike most Creationists) are not committed to the proposition that absolutely everything is designed. There is lots of room within ID for the power of natural selection. In that sense ID supervenes on evolutionary theory: it is not a replacement, it just provides an additional mode of explanation that current evolutionary theory does not.
Last of all, this argument against design relies on an equivocation on the word "intelligent". Take Joe, a high-school drop-out who couldn't multiply fractions if his life depended on it. Is Joe "intelligent"? Well, not in one sense. He is certainly not smart. But he is intelligent in the sense important for ID, that he is an agent capable of purposeful action aimed at an end, and furthermore that these actions are distinguishable from chance and necessity. This is why an archaeologist's ability to distinguish rocks from tools used by ancient man has nothing to do with the optimality of the tool. sub-optimality arguments do present interesting challenges for certain brands of theism (i.e., Christianity), but not for ID per se.
