Why the Argument from Suboptimal Design Is Weak

I recently received correspondence from a chess Grand Master I know. As an atheist, and an adherent of evolutionary orthodoxy, he wanted to know how I, an ID advocate, would respond to the problem of poor or suboptimal design in nature — an argument to which, he claimed, he had never encountered a satisfactory answer. He gave a few examples, “rang[ing] from technical design flaws such as the recurrent laryngeal nerve, to vestigial features such as the marsupial mole having non-functioning eyes hidden under its skin, to ‘commonsense’ features such as using the same mouth for both eating and breathing, leading to an untold number of deaths through choking.”

Click here to continue reading>>>


Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit

Facebook Comments