Posted on 05/09/2010 4:25:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
THE eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 - that something as complex as a watch must have a maker - creationists have used it to make the "argument from design". Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it strains belief to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.
Recently, evolutionary biologists have turned this argument on its head. They say that the "inside out" vertebrate retina - curiously structured so that its wiring obscures the light sensors and leaves us with a blind spot - can be described as one of evolution's "greatest mistakes".
The anatomy of the retina is indeed good evidence that eyes were cobbled together bit by bit. Surely a creator would never have chosen to construct an eye in this way. In return, creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision - and even that its structure enhances vision.
This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see "Optical fibre cells transform our weird, 'backward' retinas"). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina's light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.
Of course, findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have a point - although they may well quote this study. Intelligent design proponents have shown themselves to be adept at speciously quoting peer-reviewed studies that appear to support their claims.
Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for choosing to put the wiring in front of the sensors.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
‘Are you saying that if something is easy to understand that it then cannot be true? Last time I checked 2+2 still = 4...this is both easy to understand even for a child and is yet true...”
I’m saying that the explanation handed down in Genesis is aimed at the least knowledgeable among us. It is a very simplistic story but by no means the whole story. Had we never sought hard knowledge beyond that explanation, we would still be living as our ancestors lived 4,000 years ago.
“...I still will take Him at His word...or do you think He is lying to us?...”
I’m leery of anyone who blindly follows “the word of God”. Too much manipulation has occurred in the handling and interpretation of scripture to simply accept every concept as written. Many folks misinterpret the Bible, either as a means to a goal or from ignorance.
“...The only thing clearly evident in the fossil record is that a lot of things died and were trapped in sediment...interesting that we find these fossils all over the earth even were there is no current large bodies of water...”
Here is a good explanation of why those ancient bodies of water are no longer where they once were.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html
So there are two different gods. The one unable to create squat other than a ancient heated steaming pot of primordial soup, and then the Creator that created heaven and earth and all that He called good.
Exactly!
The ‘blind spot’ is not a problem hindering the success of the species.
The author’s logic is a bit weak to me. For instance if the structure and morphology of the vertebrate eye is sub-optimized (but obviously ‘successful’ and pervasive) then isn’t the general mammalian (largely) fixed stereo vision system inferior to the lizard which can direct and focus its eyes independently? And wouldn’t we be ‘better’ if human eyes were as sharp as a hawk’s ... or if we had eyes in the back of our heads, or four arms, or gills and lungs ...?
You get the idea.
NET: I agree with you.
OK, check out Psalm 109:8 The entire psalm is a prayer requesting the punishment of the wicked.
Also, read II Chronicles 7:12 all the way through to verse 22. Pay careful attention to 7:14 AND 7:22.
And we must all remove the board in out eye prior to identifying the wicked for God to punish.
“we find satisfactory” Good point! Who are we to tell God “THIS would be a better design”
Thanks, Dr Lew. I was pulling that from my memory, having read the book about hmmm... 10 years ago? I appreciate the pull quote.
This is in the News forum. Too bad you have nothing to offer.
Yeah I admit it was a snipe. It’s just that I have posted hundreds of times on the subject and don’t have the time at the moment to offer a full up analysis because I know that ultimately it will boil down to a set of beliefs, religious in nature posing as science from evolutionists.
There are many many fatal flaws in the logic of evolutionists.
And I am not creatist or Intelligent design type either. I have a PhD in Statistics and I know a little how scientists cobble a ‘story’ together from disparate facts and inferences, how they perpetuate a mystical script in a science wrapper.
At least Christians are honest in calling theirs a belief system based on faith. Evolutionists OTOH go to great lengths to measure and record and draw inference in a manner and style that mimics the scientific method but at its core requires a belief in an unproved ‘law’, the law being that of evolutionary natural selection of which certain aspects are compelling but never entirely convincing unless of course one is a true believer.
But true believers outside a system of faith are political entities, not scientists. For example, Paul R. Erlich of the 1968 sixties “Population Bomb” who is presently advocating street fighting with Global Warming deniers.
So I have been conditioned to react to any article that starts with a basis in ‘Evolution’ as a religious document.
Because in the final analysis evolution to me is nothing more than an interspecies map connected by relations determined from maximum likelihood estimates based on sparse data. To me the leap to evolution is a whole lot of whooey.
Also have you ever noticed how the evolutonists always want to point the argument into an assault on creatists.
While you just articulated it different than I did, it has always been my point that one does not need to be a creatist to doubt and ultimately reject evolution as anything but a religious belief and not a science. All one has to is study its works and I have
The evolutionists will resort to any distraction from a hard look at the points you made so they resort to various strawmen and other such tactics.
Yes it is an attention diverting tactic. The global warming alarmists use the same tactic. It is a standard tactic of the Left.
Corrected.
At least Christians are honest in calling theirs a belief system based on faith.
We are told over and over by Christians that there is only one truth and we are told it is a fact that anyone that doesn't know this truth will burn in hell.
Nice little display of ignorance you made there.
And most Christians do not subscribe to your misinterpretatiom of their beliefs.
Of course this post here is not for you as I would wager having it directed to you would be profitless. It is directed towards those that scan and are relieved to see a response that reflects their sentiment, that way not requiring a keyboard engagement.
Flame away.
There is no GOD.
I know this is true because he told me so.
(let it sink in)
*eyeroll*
Hubris-as-science? Check!
ALWAYS?
I think it is fair to note that scientists who use evolution as a way of denying creation are given more media exposure than those who do not.
Only in the mind.
“How do you know that there cannot be ‘non-existence’?”
I know you do not realize what you’ve asked, but truly it is like asking, “how do you know you cannot be at home and in Zimbabwe at the same time?” (assuming my home is not in Zimbabwe, which, thankfully, it isn’t).
To say, “there is non-existence,” has no meaning, and in fact, is self-contradictory. It is like saying something can be true and not true at the same time. To say something “is” means, that it exists. To say “non-existence is,” is identical to saying, “non-existence exists.”
The pseudo-concept, “non-existence” or “nothingness” is the invention of certain philosophers, like Hegel, and theologians, like Augustine and Aquinas. (You will not find the concept in the Bible, by the way.)
The concept is a, “floating abstraction,” which is an idea taken out of the context of its true meaning and treated as though it had meaning without connection to anything. One can ask, “what’s in that box,” and the correct answer can be “nothing,” if the box happens to be empty. So, we can say a box is “empty,” meaning what is in it is nothing. But there cannot be just “nothingness” or “emptiness,” because there must first be something to be empty.
Hank
I too believe we should strive for knowledge but in the search for knowledge we need to be open to the truth...even if we can not fully understand it...it appears that you are willing to accept theories that are offered by men that keep changing in stead of the word of God, that is your choice.
It is easy to throw out the “blindly follow the word of God” argument to discount some of the things I have stated but I have come to this conclusion after over twenty five years of studying both science and scripture. The point I made in the beginning of this discussion was that science cannot prove EITHER position (creation or evolution) so that we need to look at all the evidence, but it seems like you will only accept what you already believe (and can not know for sure...no test), again that is your choice.
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One in understanding.
I will finish this discussion asking you to look into what the word of God says. You mentioned misinterpretation and manipulations but the same could be said of some of the scientific research that is done but it appears you still study science.
A sequence by itself means nothing. This is a sequence of burial in the sediment. We both can look at the fossils in the sediment and look at the sequence of burial in that spot and still come to different conclusions...and neither of us can scientifically prove our position since we could not fully test our theory. It comes down to how we try to interpret the evidence in front of us.
I was not referring to God, but to the scientific community. I am very familiar with both Genesis and John. If I were not, I would not be wrestling with the tension between the traditional understanding of Genesis and Darwinism. It is precisely because of my profound conviction that the Bible is the Word of God that I am looking for ways of reconciling faith and science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.