When one looks at the above insect, it is easy to understand why the evolutionary process would produce such a phenomenon: The insect’s camouflage allows it to more readily evade predators, and therefore increases its likelihood of successfully reproducing.
There remain a number of people, however, who insist that these traits are the result of intentional “design”. It seems to me there are some insuperable problems with this position. These arise from the fact that, while beneficial to the insect, the camouflage presents problems for the predators that would feed upon the insect and make it less likely that the predator will successfully reproduce. This requires that the designer provide these predators with their own set of adaptations, e.g. a more keen sense of vision, to offset the difficulties presented by the insect’s convincing mimicry of a leaf.
Now, if one hypothesizes an enormous number of “designers” each competing against the others, then this may not present a problem. However, enthusiasts of the “design” model almost invariably conflate their hypothesis with belief in one of the traditional monotheistic faiths. This necessitates that they view the biosphere as one single complex system, conceived of and executed by a single “designer.”
This raises the question, then, of why such a “designer” would deliberately create one part of a system that actively works against another part of the system and prevents it from fulfilling its function. It would be as if the designer of an automobile included a device that cut the line connecting the fuel tank to the engine. He would then have to design another device that either reconnects the fuel line, or disables the device that cuts it. However, he then re-designs the device that cuts the line so that this 2nd device is ineffective, leading him to improve the design of the device that reconnects the line, and so on in a never ending cycle of changing one part of his design to overcome the problems he has unnecessarily created, and in which one part of his design is actively working against the goals that the design was meant to achieve.
Now, if we imagine this designer is some sort of mad genius, then we could perhaps understand this behaviour. But, again, most adherents of Design Theory view the “designer” as a competent and benevolent being, and not as deranged and capricious.
So I am interested in hearing how proponents of Design Theory deal with these problems. Thanks in advance.