Intelligently designed broken genes?

Skeptic, vol. 23, no. 3 (2018)

Some people might be surprised to learn that despite being an evangelical Christian I cannot support the intelligent design movement and its arguments. There are a host of reasons for this, some of the more crucial ones being theological (and thus biblical). However, a few of those reasons are scientific in nature, philosophically and methodologically, which I was reminded of this weekend as I was reading an older issue of Skeptic magazine (2018).

In this issue was an article by Nathan Lents who had posed five examples of poor or bad design that proponents of intelligent design (ID) need to address, taking for granted that ID is a properly scientific model. The examples which he listed were fairly thought-provoking but it was the first example of bad design which he had highlighted that I found quite compelling—specifically, broken genes.

Lents explained that in the human genome there are "broken-down versions" of genes that "bear striking resemblance to important and functional genes in other species." A famous example of this is the GULO gene, which "normally functions in the synthesis of ascorbic acid, more commonly called vitamin C." Now, there is a clear and simple evolutionary explanation for why the majority of animals can synthesize vitamin C while primates cannot, and of course it has to do with common ancestry. Lents himself explains that in some population ancestral to the primate lineage (perhaps around 90 million years ago) the GULO gene was disabled by a random mutation and then became fixed in the population. From that point onward it has accumulated a number of other mutations, he said. "We have the GULO gene, but it's broken." Admitedly, all of that makes good sense to me.

The question, however, is what explanation could the ID model possibly provide? "Since creationists don't believe in evolution, what is their explanation?" he asks. "It's not that we don't have the GULO gene. We do. It just doesn't work. Why would an intelligent force intentionally design us with a broken gene? Give us a gene or don't, but a broken version?"

That is an excellent question and I would like to hear from creationist proponents of ID who believe they can answer it. Specifically, I would like to hear an explanation for how this state of affairs makes more sense given intelligent design than it does given evolution (thus providing a reason to prefer intelligent design over evolution).

John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 400 words