When I studied biology, I was often amused by how my teachers would often accidentally admit intelligent design. One example I remember was when we were looking at the prostate. The teacher stood up and declared, very confidently, that the prostate is badly designed. The argument from supposedly bad design is common to Evolutionists. There are, however, two problems. The first, and most obvious, is that even bad design is still design. Take a look at my pocket watch in the image above. The words “can” and “do” should be separated by a space. Unfortunately, whoever designed it did not do so. This is bad design, but no one could argue that such a brilliant watch could arise by natural processes. Even the lid on which the words are carved could not have reached its present state without intelligent intervention. The same is true for all “bad” designs Evolutionists claim support their view. They couldn’t just evolve.
The second problem is that the features they claim are bad designs are actually not badly designed at all. In the example of the prostate, Evolutionists like my teacher argue that because the prostate surrounds the urethra, it can grow with age and restrict the flow of urine, causing problems in older men. But is it really bad design? No, for several reasons.
The first and most obvious reason is that not all men are affected. It doesn’t even affect a large portion of the male population. If it was such a huge problem, it would affect most, if not all men. In reality, the prostate tends to shrink with age. On top of that, some men are more at risk than others. Japanese men living in Japan, for example, are much less at risk than Japanese men living in America, who experience the same level of problems as other Americans. It is theorised that differences in the typical diet of people in both countries are the reason for this. Effectively, there are different types of fuel to put in our engine. Put the wrong types in, the body is negatively affected. To call this bad design is the same as saying my smart phone is badly designed because it doesn’t work after I tried to take a photo of a fish under water.
The second reason is that the prostate is economically designed. Placing it elsewhere would require a whole new duct system and an extra propulsion system. Compact designs, i.e. designs that require less materials and complex structures, are far better than overly complex designs with more structures than would normally be required.
Ultimately, the prostate is not nearly as badly designed as Evolutionists claim. Sure, there are problems that can occur, especially if the owner of the prostate in question doesn’t look after their body properly. However, overall, the prostate performs an important function, and its positioning makes sense when you consider the inefficiency of any other position it could have been placed in. Other arguments of bad design fail for similar reasons. The human eye, the RLN, the appendix, these are not as badly designed as Evolutionists claim, yet even if they were, they would certainly still be designed. So where does the bad design argument come from? Desperation.