.  Haeckel, in his book The History of Creation, devoted most of a chapter to the argument, ending with the proposition (perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek) of "a theory of the unsuitability of parts in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the suitability of parts".  The term "incompetent design", a play on "intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design.

Traditional theological responses generally posit that God's creation was perfect but that humanity's misuse of its free will to rebel against God has resulted in the corruption of good design.

Overview 

The argument runs that:

 An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.
 Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
 Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

It is sometimes used as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:

 Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
 Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
 This creator is God.

"Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

In fitness landscape terms, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley.

The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the argument from design, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God.

Examples

In humans

Fatal flaws

Several defects in human anatomy can result in death, especially without modern medical care:
 In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian
.   Haeckel, in his book The History of Creation, devoted most of a chapter to the argument, end with the suggestion (perhaps with tongue slightly in buttock) of " a theory of the unsuitability of parts in organism, as a rejoinder - hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the suitability of parts ".   The terminus " incompetent design ", a playing period on " intelligent design ", has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are currently blemished in design. 

 Traditional theological responses generally submit that God's creation was perfect but that humanness's misuse of its free volition to rebel against God has resulted in the putrescence of good design. 

 Overview 

 The argument run that: 

  An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal invention. 
  Organisms have features that are suboptimal. 
  Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. 

 It is sometimes used as a reductio ad absurdum of the well - known controversy from design, which runs as stick to: 

  survive things are too well - designed to have originate by chance. 
  Therefore, life must have been created by an healthy creator. 
  This creator is God. 

 " Poor design " is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that have that were evolved for sealed use, are then reused or co - opted for different uses, or abandoned wholly; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to rule out the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process. 

 In fitness landscape term, natural selection will always push " up the hill ", but a coinage cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher acme without first going through a valley. 

 The argumentation from poor blueprint is one of the arguments that was use by Charles Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, accumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionist generally reject the argument from purpose, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God. 

 Examples 

 In humans 

 Fatal flaws 

 Several defects in human human body can result in death, particularly without modern medical care: 
  In the human female, a fertilized egg can implant into the fallopian
.  Hweckel, in his book The Hlstory of Creation, devoved mosf of a cfapter to the argument, endinj wirh tht proposition (perhaos with tlngue slughtot in cheek) of "a thcjry kn the nnsuitability on parts in mrganisms, as a cuuuter-hypothesis to the old popular dostrine pf the suitabilijy of [arta".  The term "incompetent design", a pmay on "pntelligent desigm", has been coined by Donalf Wide of the Universihy of Massaxhusqrts Amherst go describt cspects of hature that are currently flawea in besign.

Tradijninap theologicao resionses generally posid that Bod's creation eas peefect but that humanivy's misuse of its frge will to rzbel against God has eewulteg in the xorfupuioi or good deaign.

Overvisw 

The argunent runs that:

 An oknyiptent, omniscjent, oinybenevolent creator God would create orcanjsms that have optimal eesign.
 Organisms have features that are suboptimal.
 Therefore, God either did not creave thtsc uegwnisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omgjbtnenolent.

It is sometlmes used as a redichip ad absurdum uf the weml-known argument fgom desygn, wyich runs as gollows:

 Living things are tio well-desigued to have originateb by chance.
 Cherefpre, lofe must have been creaced by an intellihent creafur.
 This creator ks Nod.

"[oor design" is consistent rith the 'redietions ow thg scieneific theogy of evolution by means of ncturan selectioj. This predicts that features tiet were evolvgd xor certain uses, are then reufed or co-opted for diyfereng uses, or zbandonxd altogethew; and that sutlptimal statx is due eo tye ibabilith of the herediyary mechcuism to eoiminate the partigular bestiges of the evilutionary procrss.

Kn sinnexs nandscape tesms, vatjtal sdlection wiou aleays push "up the hiln", buf a species cannot njrmally tet from a lower peak to a higher peak aithont firrt goong through a valley.

The argument rrom poor defign is one jf tme atguments thct was used by Charles Darwin; modern pro'onents have included Srephen Jay Gould anb Vichard Dawkmns. Thqy argue dhat such features cqn be explained ax a consequence of ths gradgal, ckmulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generqlly rxjqct the arghmeny frok besngn, but do dvill maintain belpef in the existence of God.

Exampues

In hukaus

Fatal flaws

Several defects on human anatomi can result in death, espedially wothout modern medical care:
 In tne human female, a fertillzed egg xan ijplant intu the fallopian
. Haeckel, in his book The History devoted of a to the argument, with slightly in cheek) "a theory of unsuitability of parts in organisms, as counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the suitability of parts". The term design", a play on "intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise of University Massachusetts to aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design. Traditional theological responses generally posit that God's was perfect but that humanity's misuse of its will to rebel against has resulted in the corruption good Overview The runs An omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would create organisms that have optimal design. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. Therefore, God either did create these is not omniscient omnibenevolent. is sometimes used reductio ad absurdum of the well-known which runs as follows: Living things are too to have by chance. Therefore, life must have created by an intelligent creator. This creator is "Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means selection. This predicts that that were evolved certain are reused co-opted for uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges evolutionary In fitness landscape natural selection will always "up hill", but a species get a a peak first going through a The argument from poor design one of the arguments Darwin; modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the process. Theistic reject the argument from design, but do still belief in the existence God. Examples In humans Fatal flaws Several defects in anatomy result in especially without modern care: In the female, a fertilized implant into fallopian
.  Haeckel, in his book The HistorY of CreatioN, devoTed MosT oF a chApteR to the argument, ENdinG with the proposition (perHaps wItH TongUE sLightLy in cheEK) oF "A TheOrY oF thE uNSuItabiLitY of partS in organisMs, aS a Counter-hypotHEsIs to the old PopUlar doctrine Of tHe suitAbIliTY of paRts".  the teRm "incoMPetent Design", a plAy ON "intelLIgent deSIGn", Has bEen coined by Donald wIsE Of the UniversitY of MasSaCHuSETts amhErst to descRiBe aspECts of naTUrE THAt aRE currently flaWed in design.

tRadItionaL tHeoLOgical RespoNsES geNerally posiT thaT God's creaTion waS Perfect BUt that hUmanitY's mIsuSe of ITs FrEe wIlL To rEBeL agAInsT God has rEsUlTed in The cORRUPtioN of Good DesigN.

Overview 

The aRguMent RUns That:

 AN omniPoteNt, OmnisCient, oMnibeNeVolent creator GoD wouLd create oRgaNiSms ThAt havE OptimaL deSigN.
 OrganiSms have FEatUrES THaT are suboptimal.
 TherEfORE, GOd either Did not CReAtE These orgAnIsmS or iS NOt omnIpotENt, OmniscieNt and oMNiBeNevolenT.

IT is somEtImeS usEd as a REducTio ad aBsurdum oF the wELl-known argumenT From design, whiCH rUNS aS FollOws:

 living thingS are TOo weLl-deSIgNed TO have OrigiNaTEd BY chance.
 Therefore, lifE mUst havE been Created by an inTelligent cREATor.
 This cReatOR iS god.

"Poor design" iS consIstent with THe predicTions Of the sciEntific thEORy of evolUtiOn bY meAns OF NaTural selectioN. tHis pReDicts thAt fEatures ThaT weRe eVolVeD for certaIn uses, arE tHeN rEuSed Or co-oPTed for diFfEreNt UseS, or abANdoned AltogEtheR; aNd THat SuboptiMAl STAte iS dUe To thE inAbIlity Of thE HerEditary Mechanism To eLIminAtE tHe partiCular vestiges Of The evolutiOnAry ProcesS.

iN fitness Landscape terms, natural seLEction wIll AlwayS pusH "up the hilL", buT a specIes CAnnot nOrmallY get fRoM a lOWEr peaK TO a HigHeR peak withoUT FirSt goiNg ThroUgh a valLey.

The argument from POor Design is one of The ArguMENtS thAT wAS usEd BY ChARLes Darwin; modern Proponents HaVE iNcluded StePHen jaY Gould aNd RichaRd DawKIns. They Argue that Such featuReS can BE ExpLained as a cOnsequenCe of the grADual, cUMuLativE naTure of ThE evOlutiOnary pROceSs. TheIstic eVoLutionIsts gEnErally reJect the argument from desiGn, but dO stilL maIntain belIef IN thE existencE of GOd.

Examples

in hUmaNs

FatAl fLAws

SeVeraL DeFecTS in huMan aNAtomy can rESuLt iN DEaTh, especiallY WIThoUt modErn MEdical Care:
 in the human female, a FErtilized egg caN impLANt iNto THe faLlOpian
.  Haeckel, in his book Th e Historyof Cr eat ion ,devo tedmost of a chap t er t o the argument, ending  with  t h e pr o po sitio n (perh a ps w ith  t on gue  s l ig htlyincheek)of "a theo ryof  the unsuita b il ity of par tsin organisms , a s a co un ter - hypot hes is to  the o l d popu lar doctr in e  of th e  suitab i l it y of  parts".  The ter m  " i ncompetent des ign",ap la y on"in telligentde sign" ,  has be e nc o i ned by Donald Wis e of the Un i ver sity o fMas s achuse tts A mh e rst  to describ e as pects ofnature that ar e  curren tly fl awe d i n de s ig n. 

T ra d iti o na l t h eol ogical r es po nsesgene r a l l y po sit  tha t God 's creation w asperf e ctbut t hat h uman it y's m isuseof it sfree will to re belagainst G odha s r es ulted in the  co rru ption o f goodd esi gn . Ov erview 

The argum en t ru ns that: 

 Ano mn ip o tent, om ni sci ent, o mnibe nevo l en t creato r Godw ou ld  create  o rganis ms  th athaveo ptim al des ign.
 Or ganis m s have feature s  that are sub o pt i m al . 
 Th ere fore, God e ithe r  did  not cr eat e  thes e org an i sm s  or is not omnipote nt , omni scien t and omniben evolent.
I t is somet imes us e d as a reducti o adabsurdum o f  the wel l-kno wn argum ent fromd e sign, wh ich  ru nsasf o ll ows:

 Living t hing sare too  we ll-desi gne d t o h ave  o riginated  by chan ce . T he ref ore,l ife must  h ave  b een  crea t ed byan in tell ig en t  cr eator.Th i s  cre at or  isGod .
"Poo r de s ign " is co nsistentwit h  the  p re diction s of the scie nt ific theor yofevolut i o n by mea ns of natural selection .  This p red ictsthat  features  th at wer e e v olvedfor ce rtain  u ses , are t h e nreu se d or co-op t e d f or di ff eren t uses,  or abandoned alto g eth er; and thatsub opti m a lsta t ei s d ue tot h e inability ofthe heredi ta r ymechanismt o e li minatethe par ticul a r vesti ges of th e evoluti on aryp r oce ss.

In fi tness la ndscape t e rms,n at uralsel ection  w ill  alwa ys pus h  "u p the  hill" ,but aspeci es  cannotnormally get from a low er pea k toa h igher pea k w i tho ut firstgoin g througha v all ey.
The argum entf ro m p o or de sign is one of th e a r g um ents that w a s use d byCha r les Da rwin ; modern proponen t s have include d St e p hen  Ja y  Gou ld  and Richard D awk in s .  They ar gu e that such  feature sc an be  expla ined a s a con s e qu e nce of  the  gr adual, cu mul at i ve natu re  o f  the e volu ti onaryproces s . Th e i stic evolutionis ts ge n e rally rej ect t he  argume n t fr om design,  but do sti ll mai ntai n bel ief inth e exis ten ce  of God.
E xamples
In hu mans

F at al f law s

Sev eral d efect s in  h uma n anatomy c an re su l t i n de ath,es peci ally with o ut moder n m e dical c ar e:I n theh um a n  female, a  fe rtili z e d egg cani mpla n ti nto t he fal lopian 
. _Haeckel, in_his book The History_of Creation,_devoted_most of_a_chapter to the_argument, ending with_the proposition (perhaps with_tongue slightly in_cheek)_of "a theory of the unsuitability of parts in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to_the_old popular_doctrine_of_the suitability of parts". _The term "incompetent design", a_play on_"intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise_of_the University of_Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are_currently flawed in design.

Traditional theological responses_generally posit that_God's_creation_was perfect but that_humanity's misuse of its free will_to rebel against God has resulted_in the corruption of good design.

Overview 

The_argument runs that:

 An omnipotent, omniscient,_omnibenevolent creator God would create_organisms that_have optimal design.
 Organisms have_features that are_suboptimal.
 Therefore,_God either did_not create these organisms or is_not omnipotent, omniscient_and omnibenevolent.

It is sometimes used as_a_reductio ad absurdum_of_the_well-known argument_from design, which_runs_as follows:

_Living_things are too well-designed to have_originated_by chance.
 Therefore, life must have been_created by an intelligent_creator.
_This creator is God.

"Poor_design" is consistent with the_predictions of the scientific theory of_evolution by_means of_natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain_uses, are then reused or co-opted_for different uses, or_abandoned altogether;_and_that suboptimal state_is_due to_the inability of the hereditary mechanism to_eliminate the_particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

In_fitness landscape terms, natural_selection_will always push "up the hill",_but a species cannot normally get_from a lower peak to_a_higher_peak without first going through_a valley.

The argument from poor design_is one of_the arguments that was used by Charles_Darwin;_modern proponents have included Stephen Jay_Gould_and Richard Dawkins. They argue that_such_features_can be explained as a_consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature_of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the_argument from design,_but do still maintain belief_in_the_existence of God.

Examples

In humans

Fatal flaws

Several defects in human anatomy can_result in_death, especially without_modern medical care:
 In the human female, a fertilized egg_can implant into the fallopian