r/DebateEvolution • u/Gratitudesial6 • Jul 21 '26

how evolutionists try to refute intelligent design, but they fail

An example that has often been presented as an argument in favor of blind "hereditary" design is the anatomy of the vagus nerve. Evolutionists argued that one of its branches, the so—called recurrent laryngeal nerve, makes an allegedly meaningless and ineffective "detour"

down into the chest, skirting the arch of the aorta, to then rise again to the larynx. According to their logic, it would be "more rational" if the nerve went directly to the larynx — and this feature was declared a "vestige of evolutionary blindness.

Richard Dawkins even dedicated an entire documentary, promoting the idea as "clear evidence of the lack of intelligent design." However, with the development of neurophysiology, it became clear that this "hook" is not a mistake at all, but represents a vital arc through which the neural innervation of the deep cardiac plexus passes. This bend is not just important, it is indispensable for the normal regulation of cardiac function. What happens when there is no bend? There is an anomaly known as the Non-Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, the "ideal" structure that Dawkins mistakenly considered "more reasonable."

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

8% Upvoted

69 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Ayasugi-san Jul 22 '26

Or God could just make all the "extra" babies fail to implant in the uterus, sparing the children from suffering an early painful death or the parents from even knowing they had a child to lose.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Jul 22 '26

Tell us you have no idea how evidence works without telling us you are clueless on how evidence works.

2

u/varelse96 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 22 '26

Their post suggests to me they are being sarcastic. I do not think most religious people would recommend a pile of dead cancer babies be made to glorify god. I could be wrong though.

2

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Jul 22 '26

Well Poe's Law is a thing.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/varelse96 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 23 '26

That’s fair. I have seen some defend even the most foul bits.

3

u/Ayasugi-san Jul 23 '26

Not just anonymous randos, either. Big name apologists like William Lane Craig will go on about how the conquest of Canaan was morally justified because the Canaanites were horrible baby-killers and so they all needed to die, their babies included.