Debunking "Bad Design of the Human Ear" Claims

Advocates of universal common ancestor evolution often declare that certain parts of the human body and in animals are poorly designed, therefore, there is no Master Designer. The first thing to notice is that such claims (dysteleology) are based on opinions, not science. In fact, those are theological "arguments"!

Creationists say that things are designed, and are constantly being vindicated. We saw a refutation of "bad design" of the human ear a spell back. As is so often the case, additional information reaffirms the creationist position.

Foolish arguments by evolutionists about poor design are not scientific. Once again, research vindicates creationists on the design of the human ear.
Pexels / Karolina Grabowska
Darwinoids were complaining that some critters can close off their ears to keep water and things out, we can't, so there is no Creator. Well, we're not chickens, seals, crows, and other things. Their ears were designed for their lifestyles, ours were designed for the way we live. You savvy that? We already have ear protection, enhanced sound discrimination, and to be able to locate sounds. Those tinhorns should give glory to God instead of pretending he doesn't exist, hiding behind fundamentally-flawed presuppositions and foolish arguments
One of the newest poor-design claims is that our ears are not properly protected from dust, pollution, water, insects, and other outside insults compared to other animals. . . .

Giske gives the following evolutionary explanation for this poor design in humans: “The short answer is that it’s been a real long time since we started our development in water. About 380 million years ago, our ancestors stopped being fish and they came ashore” so, he concludes, natural selection has never evolved the ear protection that seals have evolved. . .

. . . 
To the question of whether humans are evolving ear covers, Giske answers ‘probably not’ because, he speculates,

To read the entire article and see how Professor Giske evosplains, visit "Another Claim of Poor Design Refuted."