[whattajoke]

Therefore, when evolutionists develop difficulties in walking or seeing, they see orthopedists or ophthalmologists who they expect to help them return to a state of health.

Just like so-called "intelligent design" folks, never realizing the irony how the "perfect designer" apparently screwed up his "perfect design."

BUT, that's neither here nor there. You write as if organisms evolve themselves during their lifetime. If only...

[Aquinasfan]

Just like so-called "intelligent design" folks, never realizing the irony how the "perfect designer" apparently screwed up his "perfect design."

And what would those screw ups be?

Not surprisingly, advocates of "Intelligent Design" argue in favor of "intelligent design," not "perfect design."

Care to address any of the points I made?

[frgoff]

---
the "perfect designer" apparently screwed up his "perfect design."
---

This is simply the flip side of the creationist argument that the eye is too complex to have evolved by chance.

Just because YOU think the eye is too complex does not make it so.

Just because YOU think the design is flawed does not make it so. Unless you know the purposes of the designer, you cannot judge the design. You are engaging in a fallacy of subjectivism.

A true scientist who was operating on the axiom of design (as opposed to naturalism) would look at a "flawed" design and experiment to determine if there was a possible reason for the "flaw." Just like a current evolutionist will see some organ or behavior that makes no sense and try to come up with a naturalistic scenario to explain it.