there's these people that will tell you that the perfection of the universe is a strong argument for creation, and the general approach has usually been to concede the point and argue for incremental change as an equally valid - but superior - naturalistic explanation.

i'm not on board with that. i'm willing to challenge the premise. most people have terrible eyesight, we've got spiders eating their mates before they can reproduce, and we've got an earth wobbling around that demonstrates no understanding of aerodynamics at all. it's a circular argument, rooted in classical assumptions, producing a kind of conformation bias on observation. a closer examination demonstrates that there are contradictions everywhere in nature.