Not-So-Intelligent Design: Evolution’s Worst Ideas

An interview with the author of WTF Evolution?, a book and blog on the oddities of nature

The intelligent design crowd likes to point to the elegance of the human body and the complex logic of vertebrate eyes as proof that a master “designer” (that is, God) conceived of and created all organisms. But proponents of this idea need only look at some of the creatures on Mara Grunbaum’s blog WTF, Evolution? for proof that not all of Earth’s organisms seem to have been intelligently thought out. Features on animals such as the babirusa, the pignose frog and the flannel moth “puss” caterpillar are so silly and unwieldy that they could not have been designed with efficiency, logic or aesthetics in mind. They remind us that natural selection preserves useful adaptations from random mutations, some of which are positively bizarre.

To celebrate the some of the more questionable products of evolution, Grunbaum collected some of her favorite animals from the blog into the new book, WTF, Evolution?! A Theory of Unintelligible Design (Workman Publishing, September 2014). Scientific American spoke to Grunbaum about her hunt for the strangest nature has to offer—and why unicorns aren’t real.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


How did you get started doing this?
One of the primary things that kicked off the blog was that I had come across this picture of a chameleon’s face, and I printed it out and put it on my desk and I kept looking at it and thinking, “What is this? It has a ridiculous shape and it looks like someone sprinkled paint all over it in a weird way.” It was so bizarre and clear to me that nobody thought of this. Things only get that weird when everything is completely random.

I had this collection of things like that in my head and I don’t know quite what led me to decide to start putting them on the Internet. I thought it would amuse me and my friends, and it turned out it amused some other people, too, and it took off from there.

Does the blog tend to ruffle the feathers of the antievolution crowd?
I haven’t heard a whole lot from them at this point. I do think it’s a statement about that. If you’re paying attention, it becomes pretty clear [that I’m anti–intelligent design]. I try to weave in more of how evolution actually works. It’s a weird, random, not well-thought-out process.

If there had been a thought process, the blog is what that thought process might have been. It sort of proves that there wasn’t one.

I’ve gotten comments that this shows that God has a sense of humor. If people want to read it that way, it’s cool with me, too. That’s just not my way of looking at things.

It’s definitely clear that no intelligent designer would have created some of these creatures. Isn’t it hard to believe that many of these organisms ever evolved?
It is. We tend to think about evolution as adaptations—everything has evolved in a particular way because that is the way that it works best. To some extent that’s true, things do get more suited to their environment over time. But it’s also true that things happen randomly and are not necessarily the best way to do something if you were going to design it from scratch. It’s just a way. Or it happened to be connected to some other gene. Things just happen.

And then isn’t it weird to think that some of these really bizarre creatures are real, but things like unicorns, which seem pretty reasonable by comparison, are pure fantasy?
Right? When you see some of these things, you realize unicorns aren’t that crazy. Really, that’s the best imaginary fantasy creature we could come up with? It’s just a horse with a horn. We don’t even need those when we have all these real animals that are way crazier.

How many of the animals you profile are endangered?
A lot of them are. We have a section at the end that gives more information on conservation. That was a bit of a bummer to compile. A lot are listed as endangered, and a lot are also just not well known enough that they’ve been assessed yet. It definitely made me very aware of the troubles that a lot of these species are facing. It’s great to know that all these cool, crazy species and probably more are out there but it’s upsetting that we’re losing so many. There’s probably weird stuff that we’re killing off without ever knowing it existed.

Do you think your humor allows you to reach audiences that don’t typically engage with science?
I think so. I think science is very important and very interesting and sometimes very technical, but a lot about it is very funny, too, and we should get to enjoy those parts.

I’ve heard from a lot of scientists who read the blog, as well as science writers, students and all sorts of other people. That’s pretty gratifying. The comments that make me the most happy are the people who say, “Oh this blog makes me laugh and then I learned something, too.” I’m like, “Yes!” So I’m going to keep writing the blog—and we’ll see if I ever run out of weird animals. Every time I think I’m going to run out, there’s always more.

Clara Moskowitz is chief of reporters at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for more than a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz
Scientific American Magazine Vol 311 Issue 4This article was published with the title “WTF, Evolution?! A Theory of Unintelligible Design” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 311 No. 4 (), p. 96
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1014-96a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe