Divine design

I agree you have pointed out another flaw or inconsistency with the devine design notion.

I see this issue in a more comprehensive fashion.  The argument from design is simply silly.  What the believers do is paste the concept of 'god' onto all kinds of things as if that advances an argument, when it adds nothing.

Applying 'god' to the questions about the origin of the universe, or the purpose of man contributes nothing to a solution; it simply puts a label on the unknown. Even if one posits a god as a solution or origin, one still has the same question, but merely with different terms.  The questions become, 'Where did god come from?'  and 'What is god's purpose?' or 'Who made god?'

The religionist will attempt to solve this by simply redefining terms and say 'god' is the name we give to the prime mover or to the being that is beyond being, or to use Paul Tillich's terminology, 'God is not a being, but the very ground of being.'

All of this simply leads back to the original questions, adding nothing, but an intellectual exercise suggesting the thinker has done something wonderful when he has only wasted his time.

Before Darwin, we didn't know how something could come about except by either design or chance. With the understanding of natural selection came a way to explain things in an entirely new way.

Chance was never a real possibility and there's never been any proof of design. Those who still hold to it often do so because it "looks" designed. This is hardly a good argument.

As you've pointed out, if there were a designer, he'she'it did a terrible job. If you didn't think so already, I'd tell you to wait untill the first time you're back gives out doing a fairly routine job.

Best to you!

The argument from design is one of my favorites. David Hume was the first I believe to take the argument on seriously and others have carried the torch since that time. In the book God Delusion, Richard Dawkins does a great job of laying out many arguments for the existence of god, the argument from design being one of them, and shows the fundamental issues with each. I am not saying that the book is the end to the discussion, but if you are interested in it here is the link.  http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion

However, both Nancy and Dahan explained it well. Those who argue this point look to the complexities of our world and say that it must be god who created this while failing to understand that they now have created something infinitely more complicated that must be explained.

Einsteinfan is right. 

We see great complexity around us, but the "origin of complexity" is not a mystery. We can see in the lab complex systems arising naturally from simple initial conditions. Similarly the origin of life, the origin of species etc, can be understood as natural processes.

We might still worry about the problem of the "origin of anything at all". Positing a creator not only doesn't solve this origin problem, and it actually unsolves most of the others. Complexity, life, etc, in the creator model don't arise for the first time naturally, because they existed in the creator. The creator hypothesis replaces a small mystery with a big one - or to put it another way, it replaces a little ignorance with a lot of ignorance.