# The Bad Design Argument **URL:** \ **Category:** Side Conversation\ **Created:** [May 10, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184 "2018-05-10T15:26:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2018, 3:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184/15 "2018-05-10T15:45:56Z")

> [@The Cambrian Explosion And Evolution](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-cambrian-explosion-and-evolution/160/66): > > But is this new book (just out from Houghton Mifflin), by Professor Nathan Lents at CUNY, science or religion, in your view? To answer your question @paulnelson, this is theologically-laden for sure. It contributes to the conflict in an unnecessary way. I oppose it as strongly as I’d oppose Coyne’s work, and would also hope that language is not in text books. Instead of saying “bad design”, it should be stated more neutrally, as “quirks” or “puzzles” or “details,” that appear in certain patterns, which make sense through the lens of common descent. Of course, you might disagree with that scientific conclusion, but that would at least be theologically neutral. I think, also, that this is an argument that is convincing to my secular colleagues. That is an argument that can be one with an editor or author of a textbook, as a way to reduce conflict while still presenting accurate science. I would oppose political and legal action over things like this in textbooks, but I do not think such actions would be necessary any way. Our interests are all aligned in presenting accurate science ways that do not attack religious belief. --- _[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-bad-design-argument/184)._