An analysis of the Argument from poor design

The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God based on the following reasoning:

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.( This premise is an assumption. only god knows what type of organisms he has to produce and why.)
2. Organisms have features that are suboptimal. (This is a subjective argument. many organs thought to be vestigial are now known to have some functions. Hence,any conclusion is inconclusive. Not to know why an organ exists does not mean that organ is meaningless.)
3. Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows:

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

 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.^[2]

This argument is faulty, as God never sought to make human beings without faults.He made the human body susceptible to certain agents like bacteria, viruses, fungi, etc. This was to introduce diseases in order to test him in this world or for some greater good. Moreover, the assertion that human creation has poor design is subjective. even the most sophisticated jet fighter is susceptible to crashing. that does not mean it is not intelligently designed. failure of the machinery is, in contrast, direct proportional to the complexity of the machine and points more towards a maker.