Transcription
If the universe runs without inconsistency, what would explain vestigial futures? And the particular example that was given is the woman's pelvis, which is far too small and creates a very difficult and painful birthing process.
Well, I think this is called the argument of ignorance. Just because you don't know the function of something, it doesn't mean it's functionless. So, for example, we don't know what the appendix does. It doesn't mean it has no function. It just means we haven't discovered that yet. We don't know why two electrons can be in one place at the same time in quantum mechanics. It doesn't mean that's a false notion, even though it goes against the rules of logic and it goes against some of the conventions that we believe in. So, just because you don't know something, it doesn't make it false. So that's the first point.
As for the second point of bad design, I mean, who's the judge of bad design? I mean, at least with the fine-tuning argument, you have some kind of probability, mathematical probability that can be attached to this kind of equation. You're saying that the chances of there not being, you know, a universe or the universe having a non-life-permitting range is X, which is a mathematical kind of rendering. So here, we have to be kind of honest here and say that this is an aesthetic value judgment at best, and aesthetic value judgments are not our opinions, frankly, they're your opinion. If you see something that's bad design, that's your opinion. You might think it's bad design, but there might be a