>>82786406 (OP)
Didn't know jk rowling subscribed to natural teleology. I personally don't think it makes sense to refer to things occurring in nature as having purpose, like she does by implying that egg-producing equipment can be "faulty", meaning it doesn't fulfill what its purpose is. Purpose implies that a thing fulfills some intended function, which just doesn't make sense when it comes to things that weren't created by a conscious agent, but through e.g. running the simulation of natural selection. Even if you grant that there is a conscious creator of the universe, to say a naturally occurring phenomenon has a specific purpose would require you to know the intention behind the creation. For example it's possible that the purpose of a leaf was to look pretty, and the fact it enables photosynthesis was an unintended side effect. Or that the purpose of a leaf was to do something else, but the creator messed up and ended up with something unintended. But I don't subscribe to this idea of the creator of nature anyway. To me things in nature just "are". There is no "should" to the way they are.