There are certainly cases where a design made to work under certain situations would be suboptimal when put under the stresses of a different environment. The question is, how does that apply to the flaws I listed in the OP? In what environment is our inability to create vitamin C a good thing? Tooth rot? A partially blocked retina? A woman’s breasts? Remember, we’re talking about Almighty God here. Oh, wait, of course: the Garden of Eden!
Furthermore, my logic isn’t “we suck, therefore we evolved.” As you say, there are enough other reasons for that. I decided to simply look at a tiny facet of the idea that we were specially created in God’s image.
As for those who disagree with my clitoris idea, well you may be correct, maybe not. I am under the impression that current birth pains take place deeper within the body and are associated with the baby going through the cervix, not so much the opening of the vagina itself. Besides, as it currently stands there are a lot of sensitive nerve clusters around the opening of the vagina. I would simply increase this further. And hey, if you’re right then it would fit even better for the Original Sin punishment on all women.
How about the obvious answer of “the one we evolved in, and every subsequent environement we moved into”? None of those things has had a detrimental effect on our survival as a species (which means, of course, that while those traits may not be strictly “good things”, they are not necessarily “bad things”, either), nor on the fitness of most individuals.
Because we are generalists, we can eat a variety of foods; thus, we are not nearly as dependent on our teeth as more specialized species are. We may not be able to eat corn on the cob without teeth, but we can still eat a variety of fruits and veggies, etc. We are also able to extract sufficient vitamin C from our diet. I doubt that most folks have been inconvenienced, much less actively hindered, by our retinal blind spots. And breast size probably has as much (or more) to do with sexual selection as it does natural selection. None of this points to poor design, whether the designer was God or evolution.
Yes, indeed. With an understanding of evolution this all makes sense. You’ll get no argument from me on that front.
Again, I agree, until I reach your last sentence. I think it does point to poor design if the supposed designer is God Almighty instead of natural selection. Presumably, God could have easily fixed our blind spot. He made octopods without a blind spot. Why? He designed us so many sailors, stranded people, or people living in poor conditions die horrible deaths from lacking the ability to manufacture vitamin C. There’s no reason I can see why he would do that. It’s a simple thing.
And the female breast is an example of something which can only be possible with sexual selection. Why would God do something like that? It’s not even bad design, it’s just weird.
For natural selection, as everyone has said, it doesn’t matter – if it’s good enough to live so it can reproduce, it’s good enough until something intervenes.
But for God, as most people understand the concept, it’s a little odd, isn’t it?
It seems to me that God, as a concept in general, is a little odd.
At any rate, yes, I do understand what you are getting at. My point, though, is that God may or may not have all the attributes assigned to him in The (alleged) Good Book. Moreover, as we humans demonstrate, we can have good designs and not so good ones, sometimes even by the same designers. Further moreover, what would a perfectly designed human look like anyway? If we are, as stated in Genesis, made in His image, then we automatically have constraints (“must have 4 limbs, walk on two of them, and have dangly bits”) on the design, and constraints will pretty much rule out perfection.
You also have to consider what we were actually designed to do. That part isn’t really made clear in the Bible, of course. It seems we can do a good many things, and our brains allow us to do many other things our bodies alone can’t. We can’t run as fast as a gazelle or cheetah, but we can make rocket cars and jet packs (well, sort of…). We can’t fly like birds, but we’ve stepped foot on the Moon. We don’t have the night vision of cats or other nocturnal animals, but we have night-vision goggles.
And therein lies the rub, I believe: without knowing what we were supposedly designed by God to do, I don’t think you can rightly call His (alleged) design subpar. Which brings us back to my point: perceived design issues don’t really discount the possibility of an intelligent designer. Rather, the fact that our current design can be adequately explained without the need for such a designer is a fairly substantial point against such a designer; if he is not required, then there is no need to posit his involvement in the first place. But even then, it cannot necessarily be discounted that there is an entity who designed us, but did so in such a way that it looks like he/she/it didn’t.
