(no subject)
I just read this article, and I'd like to respond to it with the following
Sure, the human eye is an extremely complex apparatus, but that doesn't mean that it can't have evolved over a long period of time. You might notice that some people are short-sighted, or long-sighted, or have other eye defects. I find it hard to believe that a perfect Creator would stuff up something like that. I claim instead that it's strong evidence in favour of an evolutionary system that's still trying to work itself out.
In addition, isn't it common sense that children have certain traits in common with their parents (such as short-sightedness)? Isn't that a fairly important component of evolutionary theory?
And another thing: the author of the article argues that if you were given all the parts to a watch in a plastic bag, it would be a virtual impossibility that they would all fall into place. Sure, that's true, but it's completely beside the point. Watches evolved too, from huge water-driven devices that were too large and expensive to be owned by anyone except kings and merchants, to pendulum-driven grandfather clocks, to spring-driven mantlepiece and wall clocks, to the motion-powered device you wear on your wrist. Time telling devices have been revamped and refined for centuries now, which is just as much a process of evolution (on however short a time scale) as anything. You can't compare eyes to watches if you believe that eyes were made by a Creator.
Just so we're perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that you could assemble all the pieces into a working watch by shaking it. I'm arguing that the pieces weren't all there in the first place. The reason we all have eyes that are basically the same is that the potential ancestors all got eaten by tigers they didn't see in time (I say "potential ancestors" because, well, they aren't our ancestors. They all died, didn't they. But they could've lived if they'd had better eyes). As tigers' camouflage got better (cos the tigers with better camouflage hunted (and thus ate) better than the ones that didn't have it), our eyes had to get better so we could spot them and avoid getting eaten, which meant developing things like irises and lenses, gradually, over large numbers of generations. We didn't do it intentionally, but the ones that didn't got eaten. Basic evolution. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read some Darwin.
*has to do work*
*essay/rant gets disjointed*
Since you do compare eyes to watches (which evolved), I'd like to point out that plants have sensors that detect light, but no eyes. Does this suggest something to you? The ability to sense light, taken in 2 different directions by diverging paths of evolution. Is this a link? Maybe not quite the missing link, but you can't justify ignoring it.
I'd also like to point out that evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive, much as people might think they are. It is possible that there is a being who made the heavens and the earth, and then let us do our own thing, and see where we got to. "And He set man at the heart of His creation." Maybe He did. But maybe He didn't do it straight away.
Bah. I've gotten distracted and lost the thread. But you get the idea. If you read a bit about evolution, you can apply a little common sense to it and see that the eye could have evolved just as easily as the opposable thumb. If the eye is this guy's only argument, it's a little weak.
Basically, what's going to happen is that we'll hang around and do research for a few tens of thousands of years and then we'll be able to see for ourselves whether or not "man is descended from apes." Or we'll stop caring. Either way, you and I are never going to know for sure. But common sense can mean anything you want it to, depending on your preconceptions.
Bring it on, creationists! ;oD
Sure, the human eye is an extremely complex apparatus, but that doesn't mean that it can't have evolved over a long period of time. You might notice that some people are short-sighted, or long-sighted, or have other eye defects. I find it hard to believe that a perfect Creator would stuff up something like that. I claim instead that it's strong evidence in favour of an evolutionary system that's still trying to work itself out.
In addition, isn't it common sense that children have certain traits in common with their parents (such as short-sightedness)? Isn't that a fairly important component of evolutionary theory?
And another thing: the author of the article argues that if you were given all the parts to a watch in a plastic bag, it would be a virtual impossibility that they would all fall into place. Sure, that's true, but it's completely beside the point. Watches evolved too, from huge water-driven devices that were too large and expensive to be owned by anyone except kings and merchants, to pendulum-driven grandfather clocks, to spring-driven mantlepiece and wall clocks, to the motion-powered device you wear on your wrist. Time telling devices have been revamped and refined for centuries now, which is just as much a process of evolution (on however short a time scale) as anything. You can't compare eyes to watches if you believe that eyes were made by a Creator.
Just so we're perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that you could assemble all the pieces into a working watch by shaking it. I'm arguing that the pieces weren't all there in the first place. The reason we all have eyes that are basically the same is that the potential ancestors all got eaten by tigers they didn't see in time (I say "potential ancestors" because, well, they aren't our ancestors. They all died, didn't they. But they could've lived if they'd had better eyes). As tigers' camouflage got better (cos the tigers with better camouflage hunted (and thus ate) better than the ones that didn't have it), our eyes had to get better so we could spot them and avoid getting eaten, which meant developing things like irises and lenses, gradually, over large numbers of generations. We didn't do it intentionally, but the ones that didn't got eaten. Basic evolution. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read some Darwin.
*has to do work*
*essay/rant gets disjointed*
Since you do compare eyes to watches (which evolved), I'd like to point out that plants have sensors that detect light, but no eyes. Does this suggest something to you? The ability to sense light, taken in 2 different directions by diverging paths of evolution. Is this a link? Maybe not quite the missing link, but you can't justify ignoring it.
I'd also like to point out that evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive, much as people might think they are. It is possible that there is a being who made the heavens and the earth, and then let us do our own thing, and see where we got to. "And He set man at the heart of His creation." Maybe He did. But maybe He didn't do it straight away.
Bah. I've gotten distracted and lost the thread. But you get the idea. If you read a bit about evolution, you can apply a little common sense to it and see that the eye could have evolved just as easily as the opposable thumb. If the eye is this guy's only argument, it's a little weak.
Basically, what's going to happen is that we'll hang around and do research for a few tens of thousands of years and then we'll be able to see for ourselves whether or not "man is descended from apes." Or we'll stop caring. Either way, you and I are never going to know for sure. But common sense can mean anything you want it to, depending on your preconceptions.
Bring it on, creationists! ;oD