Way back in 2009, in recognition of all the obvious blunders that were made in designing humans, we wrote Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer. And it was just two weeks ago, in Triumphant Free Fire Zone, that we briefly noted something about the same subject:
There’s a great new article at PhysOrg that debunks just about everything Discoveroids and a lot of other creationists have ever said. It’s well worth reading: Evolutionary flaws disprove the theory of intelligent design.
That paper mentioned by PhysOrg came to the attention of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Is the Human Body a Bad Design? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
“Any poor designer with millions of years available for trying out new solutions could have done a much better job [than evolution did].” That’s the conclusion reached by an evolutionary biologist from Norway, Professor Glenn-Peter Sætre, whose opinions on the issue were recently recorded in a lengthy article. This article highlights the supposed “flaws” in the design of the human body. But are these really “flaws”?
Hambo links to the same PhysOrg article that we did — and he’s furious! We doubt that he learned about it from us, but however it happened, we imagine that he’s red in the face, foaming at the mouth, and rolling around on the floor chewing the carpet. He says:
Here’s what anatomist Dr. David Menton had to say about Sætre’s argument. He declares that these arguments “show a profound lack of understanding of the integrated complexity of the human body.”
That’s Hambo’s rebuttal? Menton is one of his creation scientists. Here’s AIG’s bio page for him. Hambo quotes a bit more from the guy, and then he tells us:
The argument here is basically this: You expect junk “constructions” from evolution (no design at all), but not from an intelligent designer. An intelligent designer would design everything we see in nature in a manner considered to be “intelligent” by an evolutionist/atheist who is dead certain there is no intelligent designer of the natural world. Finally, the argument insists that evidence of poor design (in the opinion of an evolutionist/atheist) is evidence of no design at all. Yes, this is what passes for logic in evolutionism.
Hambo heaps scorn on evolutionist logic:
It should be noted that by all common dictionary definitions, there is no such thing as “chance design.” All definitions of design imply forethought, so all design is “intelligent design,” whether or not one likes the design or believes that it can be improved on. You may be sure that evolutionists would be no more likely to accept “mere design” than “intelligent design.”
Did you follow that? We had some trouble with it. Anyway, then he takes some of the article’s examples of poor design, and explains why they’re really wonderful. Here’s a bit of that:
1. The human pelvic birth canal: The author argues that it is a poor design for humans to deliver their babies through a narrow bony pelvis rather than through the abdomen, as in a caesarian section. He says that this is “an obvious example of ‘unintelligent design in the human body that women have a narrow birth canal, which makes childbirth both more dangerous and more painful than in other species.
And here’s Hambo’s response:
It is true that humans seem to endure more pain in the same process than do most animals. Genesis 3:16 explains this, that the greater pain in the human birth process is a result of sin: “To the woman God said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.”
Brilliant rebuttal! Then he gives us another example of alleged poor design:
2. Human inability to synthesize vitamin C: The author claims the human body is poorly constructed because we are unable to synthesize vitamin C, unlike most other mammals. [Skipping an ark-load of irrelevant blather.] Every creature requires some essential nutrients in their diet while being able to synthesize others.
Problem solved! Here’s the next alleged example of poor design:
3. Humans are so poorly constructed, it is even dangerous to eat! “The problem is that both the food that should be heading for the stomach and the air that should be heading for the lungs, enters our body via the same channel — the pharynx.” So, to the evolutionist, it’s a huge problem for humans (and every other vertebrate with lungs) that we must both breathe and eat through the same opening.
We noted that one in our earlier post. Here’s Hambo’s rebuttal:
Fortunately for the evolutionists, this is a problem easily solved by a rather simple surgery called a tracheotomy. When a tube is placed into the trachea through an incision in the neck, you achieve this “smarter” evolutionary arrangement where air enters our trachea and lungs and food enters our esophagus and stomach by completely separate channels. One can now horse down food like a trousered ape without getting it in your windpipe. But discuss this with your surgeon before you undergo this surgical “improvement” because you will be unable to talk after this procedure. You see we move air from our respiratory system through the vocal cords in our larynx in order to make the sounds of speech and we use our mouth to pronounce the words of speech. Perhaps we should just leave everything the way God created it.
There’s a lot more in Hambo’s post, but we’ve given you the general idea. In our earlier post from years ago, we mentioned several other defects the designer gave us, but it doesn’t matter. If our list were presented to ol’ Hambo, he’d still respond that we’re the best of all possible designs — and anyone who disagrees can complain forever in the Lake of Fire.
Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.