Changes

The argument from poor design is fallacious for the following reasons:

The argument from poor design is fallacious for the following reasons:

#It is self-defeating, since under evolutionist theory, any supposed design flaw would have been eliminated by [[natural selection]].

#It is self-defeating, since under evolutionist theory, any supposed design flaw would have been eliminated by [[natural selection]].

#It does not take into account the advantages that supposedly poor designs offer.

#It does not take into account the advantages that supposedly poor designs offer, such as those afflicted with sickle cell anemia having immunity from malaria.

#Even if a poor design were shown, it would not counter the other aspects of creation that are unarguably the result of good design; since an absolute rule can be disproved by a single counterexample, a single showing of a biological feature that is unarguably designed and designed well suffices to disprove the argument from poor design.

#Even if a poor design were shown, it would not counter the other aspects of creation that are unarguably the result of good design; since an absolute rule can be disproved by a single counterexample, a single showing of a biological feature that is unarguably designed and designed well suffices to disprove the argument from poor design.

#What appears to be poor design could actually be a result of the [[Fall of Man]].

#What appears to be poor design could actually be a result of the [[Fall of Man]].