Five Questions for ID Proponents – by Nathan H. Lents

Here are the five [presumably main] questions from Lents’ book. These are typical Darwinist “gotcha” questions for Intelligent Design proponents and are therefore worth addressing:

Why are we designed with nonfunctional pseudogenes?
Why do our nasal sinuses drain upward?
Why are humans so bad at absorbing vitamins and minerals?
Why do humans have muscles and bones that have no function?
Why are humans so inefficient with reproduction?

These are childish questions that Darwinists like to pose to the ID proponents. And why are these questions specifically for ID proponents when the Darwinists can offer no more than “just so” stories in response? If you think these observations are incompatible with design, you’re badly mistaken as they only demonstrate an utter lack of design principles understanding.

And here are some answers that apply to all the above questions:

Just because you don’t see a function, doesn’t mean there is no function. The function may be temporary rather than permanent – it may be active only in certain phases of embryonic development or other special circumstances.
We’re doing just fine with these “flaws”. Engineering is not about “perfect” design, but about getting the job done… and the job is getting done nicely.
Engineers do ‘platform design’ which means certain makes and models will not implement all functions and appear to be designed with “vestigial organs” (e.g. some cars have fog lamp sockets but no fog lamps).
What looks like suboptimal design to the untrained eye can be due to Design for Manufacturability and other design tradeoffs including design for
- Reliability,
- Expandability
- Programmability
- Maintainability
- Compatibility
- Adaptability
- Availability
- Development Status and Cost
Many design decisions are simply driven by esthetics. Designers chose forms and features based on their own personality and, once these decisions are made, technical solutions must follow.
These “questions” are arguments from incredulity against Intelligent Design which is ironic as Darwinists are the ones most likely to complain about this type of arguments.