Valhalla Legends Archive

Do you think intelligent design theory should be taught in public schools as a theory?

Personally, I don't think it should be.  Not necessarily for the obvious religious references, but generally for the fact that it does not belong in the science class where supporters insist it should be.  The concept of Intelligent Design is an idea, and I support it being further investigated and evidence being found to support it.  However, at the current stage all it is, is an idea, an idea with no support and therefore it cannot be considered a theory by scientific definition.  Unfortunately for most supporters of intelligent design, they do not understand this, and furthermore do not understand that science doesn't answer questions of why life began, etc.  Science explains through hypothesis and experimentation how things work and explaining natural phenomena.  Intelligent Design, if somehow were able to elude its obvious Christian link (or be constitutional acceptable in public schools/sanctions) it would be OK, IMO, to have it discussed, BUT NOT in a science class as it currently does not belong in the science class.

Intellegent design has to go back to a supernatural designer (more or less in the words of someone else on the forum).

Yes, it should be taught because I have no clue w-t-f it is so why not learn about it

I voted yes only because I believe Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monsterism) should be taught in school along side evolution for obvious reasons.

I believe in Intelligent Design & evolution.  Science, too, is only an idea that isn't possible to prove, everything is just a theory.  You can get into hardcore philosphy & argue that nothing is real...but to me that seems sort pointless.

I figure it that DUDE* planned & organized everything & then just set it all into place.  Evolution was apart of DUDE's plan




* refers to some sort of higher being

Intelligent Design and Evolution are, realistically, competing theories. It would be educational as well as competent to teach both - teaching only one side of the story is terrible.

My theory: We have been intelligently designed through evolution.

I think so. My science teacher and I had an argument about this, not ID specifically, I argued "Creationism and other theories" should be tought in school alongside Evolution. I said that students form opinions off of what their teachers say (she said no, off their parents) but I still contested that if you are exposed to multiple theories instead of one then you'll be able to form your own opinions on the subject. She argued that teachers wouldn't be qualified to teach things like Creationism.

Quote from: Invert on October 26, 2005, 03:14 AM
My theory: We have been intelligently designed through evolution.

To be clear, you think there was a creator that has created us but evolution was apart of that?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

I still don't see how Intelligent Design matches the definition of a scientific theory.  And beyond just strict speaking of definition, Intelligent Design has no evidence to support it, it's simply an idea, nothing more.  Do you have evidence for it?  There's a ton of evidence for evolution; much of it irrefutable except by those who stubbornly oppose it.

I don't necessarily oppose the idea, and I'm sure most people don't, but it simply does not belong in the science class because all there is to teach and talk about is single-point-of-view-philisophical-rhetoric-from-the-Bible.

Intelligent Design, to me, is silly. Evidence of evolution prevails everywhere you look scientifically.

I love the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism analogy. :D

I support in favor of intelligent design, Darwin may have thought of Evolution, but he did not believe in it. There should be a broad range of studies, not just Evolution or Intellegent design.  Saying that schools only teach Evolution is kinda like windows forcing people to use internet explorer.

To quote on stealth, there is alot more support Intelligent design, if you look into, I can through you a few links if you want.

Example
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/10/25/clay.life.reut/index.html

I think not. Schools should teach evolutionarism, the theory of the flying spaghetti monster, the theory of asgard and the world tree and these other theories. Church can handle teaching Intelligent Design, no need to do that in school.

If you're going to teach one you shouldn't go without teaching the other, it gives kids a 1-sided view.

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 26, 2005, 05:27 PM
If you're going to teach one you shouldn't go without teaching the other, it gives kids a 1-sided view.

That does make sense. You should teach things that they need to be teached though. That's why they should be taught Evolutionarism and the Theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That way they will have two different views on the world. And additionally teach them about the world tree, maybe about the giant turtle on whose back the world travels through space, and a couple more different theories.

I mean the two major ones, Evolution and Creationism.

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 26, 2005, 07:21 PM
I mean the two major ones, Evolution and Creationism.

There's one HUGE problem with that.  Creationism has no evidence to support it as a theory, therefore it is nothing more than an idea.  I don't think the Bible can be constitued as scientific evidence to make it a theory.  It's simply not a concept of science, that is, Creationism/ID.  IT'S NOT A THEORY; IF YOU THINK IT IS, PROVE IT; SHOW ME SOME SOLID EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE IDEA...There's a reason evolution is so widely taught; it has significant irrefutable evidence supporting it, hence making it a theory.  It's not rock-solid and it's constantly being modified, and so is everything else in science.  You should also remember that science does not answer the questions most supports of ID want to have answered, who created life and why.  Science answers how things work, how things came to be, and using through experimentation and research to explain naturally occuring phenomena.

Now, if you haven't noticed, I mentioned nothing in regard to religion, I am arguing a completely different aspact of why ID should not be taught in science classes.  Don't even get me started on the religious basis and implications of ID, which you already associated with Creationism.

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 26, 2005, 09:06 AM

Quote from: Invert on October 26, 2005, 03:14 AM
My theory: We have been intelligently designed through evolution.

To be clear, you think there was a creator that has created us but evolution was apart of that?

yes

QuoteDarwin may have thought of Evolution, but he did not believe in it

Who told you that?

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 26, 2005, 07:21 PM
I mean the two major ones, Evolution and Creationism.

Well, evolutionism is a major theory. There are scientists from all over the world supporting it. Creationism isn't, it's just a religion-specific thing. For the purpose of giving kids an alternative, a different viewpoint, it is much more valuable to give them many theories, from around the world and from different religions. There is so much christianity abound in the US that they will hear about Creationism anyway.

Quote from: Shout on October 25, 2005, 10:02 PM
Intellegent design has to go back to a supernatural designer (more or less in the words of someone else on the forum).

That's correct -- those were my words that Arta threw away out of hand because I said they had to go back to a supernatural designer (odd, too -- I was trying to say that design indicated a supernatural designer, and because that was my argument, he dismissed it).

Quote from: Stealth on October 26, 2005, 03:48 PM
Evidence of evolution prevails everywhere you look scientifically.

I disagree, and I will endeavour to show this to you through the book Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Prof. of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.  Arta asked me to post an excerpt from the book, and although it will be long and involved, please try to bear with me.  I'm taking the time to do this as a contribution to this argument, so please give me the courtesy to actually read through it.

The excerpt is from the chapter titled "Rube Goldberg in the Blood."

I take it back, it's online: here (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/behe/).  I got through retyping four of the book's pages and decided that a Google search might do better.

One other note:
I find it odd that people want to exclude ID from school on the basis that it is traditionally Christians who want it taught.  Here's where I'm at: I don't care if you're at school and you don't teach my kids about God.  That's my job as a parent, not your job as a schoolteacher.  What I do care about, though, is whether you teach my child that evolution is the end-all of scientific discoveries, and that science is the end-all for all things that took place in the universe.  That is closed-minded thinking.  All I ask is that you take a look at the ID arguments, acknowledge when you can't refute them, and admit that evolution cannot model all things.  I want to send my children to public school one day because I am convinced that their education in life will be infinitely more diverse than it can be in a private school (this may be a product of my own upbringing in public school) -- but I want to know that their teachers aren't going to indoctrinate them into something without giving them all the sides of the argument.  That's my prerogative as a parent.  (No, I don't have kids yet, but I hope to one day).

We have these enzymes that don't do anything except work together.  Missing some of a kind, a creature may bleed out or have his or her entire blood clot.  The proteins can't all just appear in one generations without significant mutation; similarly, appearing one at a time would have a probably-dangerous effect on the animal.  Natural selection does not model these kinds of developments -- or it models that they wouldn't happen.

I certainly believe that microevolution is a fact, and I believe you'd be a fool to disagree.  But evolution as a means to find new classes, phyla, or kingdoms -- I think it's absurd.

Quote from: Adron on October 27, 2005, 12:08 AM
Creationism isn't, it's just a religion-specific thing.

No Adron, it's not a religion-specific thing.  Scientists who support evolution aren't ready to accept its shortcomings, and that gets translated down into primary and secondary school teachers.  One of my favorite instructors in high school -- John Dole -- taught biology for freshmen and AP Bio for seniors.  He was an ardent evolutionist.  We never talked about the shortcomings of it in class, and he wouldn't entertain the discussion.  He was still a great teacher.

You can teach ID without talking about what the designer is.  It just *happens* to be that much of the work in ID is coming out of Christian scientists who want to find common ground somewhere, and so "Creationism" gets labelled with the other Christian sects and tossed aside.  But if you just teach that "This mechanism appears to not be possible without some kind of design behind it, at least to the best of our knowledge," then I'd be happy, and I'd bet thousands of others would be as well.

Didn't Darwin (& most other scientists) support a belief in God?

Why can't evolution be a result of Intelligent Design, it'd make so much more sense that way.

Quote from: CrAz3D on October 27, 2005, 01:11 AM
Didn't Darwin (& most other scientists) support a belief in God?

Why can't evolution be a result of Intelligent Design, it'd make so much more sense that way.

Actually if I remeber correctlly (I had to read a biography about him a couple of years ago) he lost all belief in god after his daughter died.  However many people, generally liberal christians, put up a fairly good argument on how god and evolution can coincide.

In my AP Bio class this year we spent maybe half a class period on alternative theories, while we spent over a month on Evolution. (I have this class every day, 1.5 hours/day) Obviously, I started beleiving in evolution more, and I have thought up my own ideas of what might have happened, which mix the two. However, when we were having a class discussion many of the kids wouldn't even entertain the idea that anything but Evolution could have happened.

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 27, 2005, 12:23 AM
We have these enzymes that don't do anything except work together.  Missing some of a kind, a creature may bleed out or have his or her entire blood clot.  The proteins can't all just appear in one generations without significant mutation; similarly, appearing one at a time would have a probably-dangerous effect on the animal.  Natural selection does not model these kinds of developments -- or it models that they wouldn't happen.

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 27, 2005, 12:23 AM

Quote from: Adron on October 27, 2005, 12:08 AM
Creationism isn't, it's just a religion-specific thing.

No Adron, it's not a religion-specific thing.

...

Well, it obviously depends on what you put into the word :)

If as you say, you are only teaching that some things are designed instead of evolutioned, then that's perfectly valid. It is even 100% true. That is what our genetic manipulations are about, intelligently designing other species to improve crop harvest, make them more resistant to diseases, etc. I am absolutely not opposed to teaching the possibilities for us to alter plants, animals and even humans to improve them.


What I was assuming it would be was something focused on a Christian god creating man. For the purposes of teaching alternative ideas, teaching the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is much better than that. Particularly, it teaches you skepticism, makes you aware of the possibility that everything we measure is actually fabricated data, and that nothing that we see is what we think it is. Because when you assume the existence of an undetectable allpowerful being, doing things for causes we have absolutely no way to determine with certainty, you must also accept the possibility that he is actually moving your socks each night while you sleep, stuffing odd pairs into the washer, etc.

Schools can teach both.

In science, teach evolution.

In sociology/culture, teach intelligent design.

Many people supporting ID miss the boat entirely on science.  Generally, schools do not teach in secondary science (K-12) those theories which are not widely agreed upon and having enormous bodies of supporting fact.  Evolution meets the criteria.  Intelligent design is not even science.  Teach it as a social belief if you want, like how Trekkies might believe that everyone is robots, programmed with their memories and only 1 second ago turned on.  We certainly wouldn't teach that in science even though it cannot be disproven, ever, its just silly.  Intelligent design is silly too, but you're welcome to believe it.  The key word is believe .. and that's why it does not belong in science class.

I think there is a science of theology though, correct?

I don't think ID should be taught at school because most kids already know enough about it from going to church every sunday. Evolution makes sense, such as cactuses adapting to survive in desert conditions. Why were we designed? Did some supreme being just decide to create us just for the hell of it? How would ID explain that?

It's something that we'll probably never understand, why are we here (we as in all organisms on Earth.) (And I don't mean why as in how, I mean why as in what purpose do we serve.)

Quote from: Falcon[anti-yL] on October 27, 2005, 05:15 PM
I don't think ID should be taught at school because most kids already know enough about it from going to church every sunday. Evolution makes sense, such as cactuses adapting to survive in desert conditions. Why were we designed? Did some supreme being just decide to create us just for the hell of it? How would ID explain that?

This is so wrong.  Most important for you is to study evolution so you know what you are arguing for or against.  Evolution has nothing to do with adaptation of a species.  Adaptation is a trait the exists in the living.  For example, humans can adapt to many different living conditions.  Evolution is the unsurvivability of misfits to existing environments, leaving behind those better suited to survive the conditions.  Thus from generation to generation, you have changes that coincide with environmental pressures.

Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on October 27, 2005, 05:29 PM
It's something that we'll probably never understand, why are we here (we as in all organisms on Earth.) (And I don't mean why as in how, I mean why as in what purpose do we serve.)

Too bad science doesn't answer those questions, eh?

Quote from: Grok on October 27, 2005, 06:06 PM
This is so wrong.  Most important for you is to study evolution so you know what you are arguing for or against.  Evolution has nothing to do with adaptation of a species.  Adaptation is a trait the exists in the living.  For example, humans can adapt to many different living conditions.  Evolution is the unsurvivability of misfits to existing environments, leaving behind those better suited to survive the conditions.  Thus from generation to generation, you have changes that coincide with environmental pressures.

(emphasis added)
The species has thus evolved to be better-adapted to its environment.  Natural selection operates on the basis of adaptation of a population as an aggregate of its individual organisms.

Example:

A herd of musk oxen roaming the wild prarie are heading west because the grazing seems to be better in that direction.  After some time, they come to a mountain range.  Half of the population heads south, and the other heads north.

After several years, many of the oxen have produced offspring and possibly died off.  In the northern population (Pop. A), the short-haired oxen died off almost immediately, not allowing any offspring bearing that particular trait to survive.  In the southern population (Pop. B), the exact opposite happened: due to heat-related issues, the long-haired oxen were adversely affected, and died quickly.

Over hundreds and thousands of generations, small genetic differences built up in these oxen.  Finally, having grazed all the way around either side of the mountain, the now-cold-hardy Population A meets Population B on the other side.  Because they can no longer produce fertile offspring, they are said to be different species.

The process I have just described is speciation by adaptation.  I would be surprised if you guys haven't talked about it in your classes.  It's also called "microevolution," and if you didn't accept that as fact, I'd say "Huh?"  It's clearly plausible.

Having said so, the bacteria to the plant to man is somewhat more questionable.

Quote from: Grok on October 27, 2005, 02:15 PM
In science, teach evolution.

In sociology/culture, teach intelligent design.

Many people supporting ID miss the boat entirely on science.  Generally, schools do not teach in secondary science (K-12) those theories which are not widely agreed upon and having enormous bodies of supporting fact.  Evolution meets the criteria.  Intelligent design is not even science.

Two comments about that:

First of all, I have never had any kind of sociology class, or any kind of social science class, that even approached discussing social science class in empirical terms until college.  Empiricism is built into physics and the other hard sciences; but because most schools don't teach statistics, trying to teach empirical classes in social science work would be fruitless anyway.  What good would telling students do that there's an r = 0.92, p < 0.001 if they don't know what these things mean?  I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't have really understood stats had I not taken calculus in some form.  Don't get me started on the inadequacy of American education, though.  ;)

Quote from: Adron on October 27, 2005, 11:14 AM
If as you say, you are only teaching that some things are designed instead of evolutioned, then that's perfectly valid. It is even 100% true. That is what our genetic manipulations are about, intelligently designing other species to improve crop harvest, make them more resistant to diseases, etc.

Bah, that's not what I meant, and you know it.  All I'm seeking is to have someone say "We have this model of evolution by means of natural selection, but some of these systems, like the process for blood clotting, seems to be evidence against it.  Here's why....  It would seem to indicate that the entire system was introduced at once into the genetics, which could not be explained by our current model of evolution."

IMO, evolution itself should not be taught as the end-all answer to every question about the origin of life, because it's not.  It is taught that way -- Grok, I don't know if you're just too old for that to have been true with you.

Blindly accepting that there are no phenomena in the universe that we cannot measure or observe is just as religious as believing in the supernatural.  The only thing is, this time, the religion is of faith in the human mind.

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 27, 2005, 07:59 PM

Quote from: Adron on October 27, 2005, 11:14 AM
If as you say, you are only teaching that some things are designed instead of evolutioned, then that's perfectly valid. It is even 100% true. That is what our genetic manipulations are about, intelligently designing other species to improve crop harvest, make them more resistant to diseases, etc.

Bah, that's not what I meant, and you know it.  All I'm seeking is to have someone say "We have this model of evolution by means of natural selection, but some of these systems, like the process for blood clotting, seems to be evidence against it.  Here's why....  It would seem to indicate that the entire system was introduced at once into the genetics, which could not be explained by our current model of evolution."

Well, civilizations have come and gone before. It is not impossible that there was a higher level of civilization before, one that genetically altered humans to have certain features. Then, war killed all of them off pretty much and things regressed... ;)

Though, it is also possible that there are valid intermediate stages for the process of blood clotting, ones that we have just not discovered yet. There might have been other proteins that were less efficient in the process, but that participated nonetheless. "Natural selection" between them eventually only left the ones we have today, making it seem like a mystery.

That, btw, is kind of like flowers and bees: Flowers depend on bees to pollinate them. Bees depend on flowers to feed them. They must have been intelligently designed, as there is no way they could have just instantly turned from goo into their current form, and neither survives without the other?

Quote from: Adron on October 28, 2005, 06:48 AM
That, btw, is kind of like flowers and bees: Flowers depend on bees to pollinate them. Bees depend on flowers to feed them. They must have been intelligently designed, as there is no way they could have just instantly turned from goo into their current form, and neither survives without the other?

Really nice analogy.

Quote from: Adron on October 28, 2005, 06:48 AM
That, btw, is kind of like flowers and bees: Flowers depend on bees to pollinate them. Bees depend on flowers to feed them. They must have been intelligently designed, as there is no way they could have just instantly turned from goo into their current form, and neither survives without the other?

Bees are much more dependent on flowers than the other way around.  Not all pollenators are dependent on nectar found in plants; and, don't forget, there always was wind to carry pollen.  ;)

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 28, 2005, 06:05 PM
Bees are much more dependent on flowers than the other way around.  Not all pollenators are dependent on nectar found in plants; and, don't forget, there always was wind to carry pollen.  ;)

Well, yes, pollination can be done by wind. Mostly trees are wind-pollinated. Most flowers do not get pollinated by wind though, for that to work they need to put out very many more pollen to have enough a chance of pollination to not lose in numbers each year. Also, many flowers' designs are specific to only accept pollination by a particular insect / animal.

I found this on slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166820&cid=13909977) which was found on a blog (http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-intelligent-design-that.html).

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Hilarious. ;D

Quote from: dxoigmn on October 30, 2005, 03:15 PM
Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way.

That's the flaw of the argument: right at the beginning, and it shows that evolutionists won't even give someone who calls himself religious half a chance in the science field.

We allow evolution to take its course.  If that scientist's kneecap was designed that way, he wouldn't survive, and he wouldn't have offspring; if he did have offspring, they would be so severely impaired (gimped?) that they would not survive.

The scientist in this allegory is saying that the process is implausible.  ID advocates say that the result is implausible.

It is the same thing every time: people who believe that life happened to come out of nonlife through natural selection think that their science is divine.  They can know everything to know about how the universe works given enough time to identify and study all the phenomena.  People who don't believe this are religious nuts bent on destroying the world with their hate and non-logical approach to the world.  They obviously don't follow any kind of scientific procedure, and we can throw it out when dealing with them because of that.

It disgusts me.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It sounds like you misunderstood the anecdote, but I'll take a stab at this.

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 30, 2005, 10:12 PM
That's the flaw of the argument: right at the beginning, and it shows that evolutionists won't even give someone who calls himself religious half a chance in the science field.

We allow evolution to take its course.  If that scientist's kneecap was designed that way, he wouldn't survive, and he wouldn't have offspring; if he did have offspring, they would be so severely impaired (gimped?) that they would not survive.

This is flawed. It just doesn't work that way. Natural selection does not deal with inhertiable traits, rather heritable traits. In the context of this anecdote, a broken knee cap is not a heritable trait.

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 30, 2005, 10:12 PM
The scientist in this allegory is saying that the process is implausible.  ID advocates say that the result is implausible.

The result being living creatures exist? If so then I have a big problem with that...

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 30, 2005, 10:12 PM
It is the same thing every time: people who believe that life happened to come out of nonlife through natural selection think that their science is divine.  They can know everything to know about how the universe works given enough time to identify and study all the phenomena.  People who don't believe this are religious nuts bent on destroying the world with their hate and non-logical approach to the world.  They obviously don't follow any kind of scientific procedure, and we can throw it out when dealing with them because of that.

It disgusts me.

Natural selection does not work on non-living things, it is a process on living things. So those who "believe that life happened to come out of nonlife through natural selection" don't know what they're talking about.

Quote from: MyndFyre on October 30, 2005, 10:12 PM

Quote from: dxoigmn on October 30, 2005, 03:15 PM
Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way.

That's the flaw of the argument: right at the beginning, and it shows that evolutionists won't even give someone who calls himself religious half a chance in the science field.

But maybe it was? Who are you to say it was not designed that way? I fail to see how that is a flaw. In a designed world, things need not be optimal in an evolution / selection view. Look at cats or dogs bred for "beauty", or designed clothes/furniture that are uncomfortable or hardly functional, but that exist anyway. Look at meat animals, bred so they cannot walk very well, or so they cannot give natural birth.

Something that has been designed can look/be any way. It is all up to the designer.

Logically, man wouldn't evolve in a way that would make travel harder/impossible.  As it seems to me through the lovely progressive fossil record diagram things, man has evolved in a way that has made it easier for him to move about as a bipedal species, we wouldnt want to lose one of our legs' operability because then mobility would end.

True. But the point of the story is that you can only conclude someone hit his leg if you apply a scientific/evolution analysis. Under the assumption that there is a designer creating the world, possibly planting evidence etc, it is possible that the broken kneecap was part of the initial design. Maybe it was put there to test the "Intelligent Design advocate", to make his life harder.