In order to say something is badly designed, you would have to make a theological claim about what the designer would do. That would be a theological argument not a scientific one. A scientific argument only identifies the action of a intelligenct agency. Someone could point out that a design could be better, but that doesn't mean the object wasn't designed, even if the objection is eventually true.
It is generally agreed that no human being is perfect or designs things perfectly and yet we are intelligent.
Even suboptimal designs require a designer. The Newcomen steam engine was not nearly as efficient or practical as Watts’ steam engine, but no one in his right mind would suggest on that basis that Newcomen’s engine self-assembled by random chance. Second, some designs that may look suboptimal to us are actual optimal e.g. the panda’s thumb; the panda uses his “thumb” (actually a specialized bone in the wrist) for near continuous grasping of bamboo. If it had used an opposable thumb to do so, as proponents of naturalism suggest as a superior design, it would almost certainly suffer from permanent carpal tunnel syndrome. Third, what we see now is the world as marred by the curse upon sin. For all we know, people as created may have been able to synthesize every necessary vitamin, but some of those abilities may have subsequently been lost due to genetic corruption and drift. Furthermore : Since Genesis history includes the origin of sin and death, it is crucially foundational to the logic of the gospel: a good world, ruined by sin, to be restored in the future.
Some, for example, point to the cruelty in nature, arguing that no self respecting designer would set things up that way. This argument assumes an infallible knowledge of the design process. But that need not be the case. It may well be that the designer chose to create an “OPTIMUM DESIGN” or a “ROBUST AND ADAPTABLE DESIGN” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.
Under such circumstances, the “bad design” argument is not an argument against design at all. It is a premature — and, at times, a presumptuous — judgment on the sensibilities of the designer. Coming from theistic evolutionists, who claim to be “devout” Christians, this objection is therefore especially problematic. For, as believers within the Judeo-Christian tradition they are committed to the doctrine of original sin, through which our first parents disobeyed God and compromised the harmonious relationship between God and man. Accordingly, this break between the creator and the creature affected the relationship between men, animals, and the universe, meaning that the perfect design was rendered imperfect. A spoiled design is not a bad design.
Juda Kenol : I tend to see many atheists disagree that the quality of nature does not equate to a causal agent but do so not on a logical basis. Its not a question of whether an agent was behind it or not, it is a question of whether great grandma soup could have done a better job; which is less erroneous; and must be done so in scrutiny of every cosmological to subatomic detail . What are you comparing deficiency of the eyeball to when you call it 'unintelligently designed ? Your own conception of God? What you would of done if you were god ? Once you admit this your argument becomes subjective and therefore not an argument at all. Even if we were to accept it, a plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle and if you believe a space shuttle is not intelligently designed , i become less inclined to believe in ID because you exist...
There is 1) God and 2) everything else that is not God. 1 What is not God can never be equal to God, and even God can’t make it so. God can’t create a second God, because that wouldn’t be God: not being eternal and self-existent. If we have physical matter, and some of it is sharp or hard, sometimes people will get hurt.
Badly designed arguments—‘vestigial organs’ revisited
The design hypothesis merely states that there is intelligent causation that permits the existence of life (a probability factor). Optimality of what has been designed is not a criterion for design.
"Bad design" arguments are usually flawed from the outset. Perceived "design mistakes" are just that; a matter of perception. What those critics often see as a "flaw", is actually their own limited knowledge. And, some apparent "design flaws" were actually built into the design in order to accomodate furture adaptations.
So, things often cited as design flaws are most typically a lack of the User's understanding.
The real scientific question is this: Is there any evidence for design in nature? Or, if you like, is a design inference the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence?
Why Does God Allow Diseases to Occur?
Salvador Cordova talks about the possibility that many things that are commonly considered errors in biology actually have identifiable purposes. Cordova confronts what is both a theological and a scientific critique of design, and shows its limitations.
Last edited by Admin on Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:18 pm; edited 12 times in total