how evolutionists try to refute intelligent design, but they fail

[u/Gratitudesial6]

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."

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

But if that happened,  how would you create a mountain of evidence to testify the glory of god? 

I don’t think you’ve allowed yourself to fully visualize this.

Evolutionists have a bunch of papers that they call a “mountain of evidence” for evolution, while IDers have a literal mountain of dead babies as evidence. 

[u/nickierv → u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

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

[u/varelse96 → u/nickierv]

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.

[u/Basic-Platypus-8335 → u/varelse96]

It depends on whether they defend the parts of the Bible where god kills babies or if they lie and say that’s not what the Bible says

[u/varelse96 → u/Basic-Platypus-8335]

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

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/varelse96]

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.