The Great Designer

I find myself cringing at the off-handed joke, "Everything's relative."
"But it's not," I always say.
Then I get the look I used to give my Dad when he would ask us about the sanctity of beasts after any of us said, "holy cow." The look that says, "Why is she responding as if I was at all thinking about what I was saying?"

I can give some credit to the fact that Catholicism--or at least monotheism, which is a good start--finds easy acceptance in PT. I don't think it's only at this school which happens to have a Catholic name; the name seems accidental at best, as in many cases, to the affiliation of the school itself.
But it struck me yesterday when our class was discussing the muscles in the area of the hip. This concept in particular came up:
There are no muscles whose primary purpose is to internally rotate the thigh because functionally, we don't really need to do that very much.
Nobody flinched. But look at the assumptions there!
1.) Muscles have primary, and secondary actions, and they are classified as such. Why, you ask? Because of the orientation of their fibers, of course! Nature acts for an end....
2.) A muscle will only perform an action to the extent that we need to function with that action. Again....
I don't know if anyone besides myself is consciously aware that this is what we're basing our discussions on. As far as I can tell, it's taken for granted.
Another discussion began when the teacher asked, "If you were the Great Designer, and you wanted this muscle's only action to be to flex the knee, where would you attach it? ...And yet, where is it actually attached?"

I don't know if "Great Designer" was capitalized in his mind as he was asking the question, but the assumption that muscles are there because somebody put them there for a reason is about as solid an assumption of a Creator as you're going to get. Let me assure the world, this branch of science can't be confused to contradict the Church!