In the Flock of Dodos several examples of what Olson considers suboptimal design is given as arguments against intelligent design. But has nobody in the Intelligent Design movement has ever argued for optimal design, so Olson is committing a strawman fallacy.
Examples of Arguing from Suboptimal Design in Flock of Dodos
- The rabbit who eats excreted pellets
- The human heart
We respond to a variant of this argument at the IDEA Cornell objections page:
How can anyone believe in Intelligent Design when there are, for example, viruses that cause so much harm?
This common objection has its basis in religion, not science. It assumes first of all that the designer, if there is one, must be completely benevolent. This is a claim that ID theory does not make, i.e., this is not science, but religion. Moreover it also assumes that all the purposes of this benevolent designer are completely understood by us, this is neither science nor religion, but arrogant foolishness.
ISCD writes in a similar vien in their encyclopedia:
"The objection, from optimal design, to the intelligent design hypothesis in nature is actually based on a theological argument - and an arguably erroneous one at that5. The underlying assumption is that an intelligence brilliant enough to have designed nature, must itself be in some way perfect, and its designs perfect. However, assertion is a theological one - reflecting the Judeo-Christian view of God. It is often the case that opponents of intelligent design assume that intelligent design theory is just theology (even specifically Biblical creationism) in another guise6. Because of this, the assumption is that the intelligence being postulated by intelligent design proponents is the morally and intellectually perfect Judeo-Christian God. This is a natural and intuitive conclusion given the initial assumption. However, intelligent design theorists are not attempting to assert the attributes, character, personality, attitude, features or configuration of an intelligent designer - only that somehow, somewhere, at some time, an actual intelligence of some kind was, and perhaps still is, involved in designing the material universe and the biological life in it7. The criticism from optimal design is in fact assumptive and circular, and a non-sequitur. If, as an opponent of intelligent design, one asserts that the intelligent designer that an ID proponent proposes must necessarily be, for example, the perfect Judeo-Christian God, and that ID is therefore invalid because of the flaws in nature, which one further asserts could not have been designed by such a deity, then one has erred multiply in one's argument. Firstly, one has not only wrongly imputed to the ID proponent a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, but also imputed to ID an objective foreign to it - to assert the existence of said God. Furthermore, the argument has assumed that a perfect God would design perfectly. Any conclusions or inferences drawn on these base assumptions will be spurious."
Helpful Links
Argument from Optimal Design (ISCD)
Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design by William Dembski
The Gods Must Be Tidy by Jonathan Witt
Intelligent, Optimal, and Divine Design by Richard Spencer
Top Four Misconceptions of Intelligent Design: Optimal Design