Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

From Philip Cunningham: The human eye, like the human brain, is a wonder

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

(Which allegedly required no actual design) With references, courtesy Philip Cunningham:

The human eye consists of over two million working parts making it second only to the brain in complexity (1).

The retina covers less than a square inch, and contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells. The retina possesses 7 million cones, which provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods which are extremely sensitive detectors of white light (2).

There are between seven to ten-million shades of color the human eye can detect (3).

The rod can detect a single photon. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way (4).

On average, about a quarter of a billion photons enter our eyes each second (5).

For visible light, the energy carried by a single photon would be around a tiny 4 x 10-19 Joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye (6).

The eye is so sensitive that it can, under normal circumstances, detect a candle 1.6 miles away (7),

But if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away (8).

It only takes a few trillionths of a second, (picoseconds), for the retina to absorb a photon in the visible range of the spectrum (9).

The inverted retina, far from being badly designed, is a design feature, not a design constraint. Müller cells in the ‘backwards’ retina span the thickness of the retina and act as living fiber optic cables to shepherd photons through to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine (10).

The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera (11).

The eye can handle between 500,000 and 1.5 million messages simultaneously, and gathers 80% of all the knowledge absorbed by the brain (12).

The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones (13).

There is a biological computer in the retina which compresses, and enhances the edges, of the information from all those millions of light sensitive cells before sending it to the visual cortex where the complex stream of information is then decompressed (14).

This data compression process has been referred to as “the best compression algorithm around,” (15 & 15a).

While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. To actually simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second (16). (of note: the preceding comparison was made in 1985 when Cray supercomputers ruled the supercomputing world).

In an average day, the eye moves about 100,000 times, and our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur (17).

In terms of strength and endurance, eyes muscles are simply amazing. You’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day (18).

The brain exploits a feedback system which produces phenomenally precise eye movements (19).

The human is the only species known to shed tears when they are sad (20).

Tears are not just saline. Tears have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes (21).

And, tears contain a potent microbe-killer (lysozyme) which guards the eyes against bacterial infection (22).

The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults.

This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime (23).

References:

  1. – 20 Facts About the Amazing Eye – 2014
  2. An eye is composed of more than 2 million working parts…. 20: Eyes are the second most complex organ after the brain. – Susan DeRemer, CFRE – Discovery Eye Foundation
  3. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

Excerpt : “The retina is lined with many millions of photoreceptor cells that consist of two types: 7 million cones provide color information and sharpness of images, and 120 million rods (Figure 3) are extremely sensitive detectors of white light to provide night vision.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey Department of Chemistry, Washington University

  1. – Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye – 2006 “Experts estimate that we can distinguish perhaps as many as 10 million colors.” – Wyszecki, Gunter. Color. Chicago: World Book Inc, 2006: 824…. “Our difference threshold for colors is so low that we can discriminate some 7 million different color variations (Geldard, 1972).” – Myers, David G. Psychology. Michigan: Worth Publishers, 1995: 165. From Number of Colors Distinguishable by the Human Eye
  2. Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016

Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons…

it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”…

The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.

“What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?

  1. How many photons get into your eyes? – 2016

Excerpt : About half a billion photons reach the cornea of the eye every second, of which about half are absorbed by the ocular medium. The radiant flux that reaches the retina is therefore approx. 2*10^8 photons/s.

  1. Photon Excerpt For visible light the energy carried by a single photon is around a tiny 4×10–19 joules; this energy is just sufficient to excite a single molecule in a photoreceptor cell of an eye, thus contributing to vision.[4]
  2. How Far Can We See and Why? Excerpt: “Detecting a candle flame: Researchers believe that without obstructions, a person with healthy but average vision could see a candle flame from as far as 1.6 miles.”
  3. An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001

(HealthDayNews) — The cells in the retina are so sensitive that if you’re sitting on a mountain top on a clear, moonless night you can see a match struck 50 miles away.

  1. Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes

Excerpt: “Thus, when 11-cis-retinal absorbs a photon in the visible range of the spectrum, free rotation about the bond between carbon atom 11 and carbon atom 12 can occur and the all-trans-retinal can form. This isomerization occurs in a few picoseconds (10-12 s) or less.” – Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey, Department of Chemistry, Washington University

  1. Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer – Jul 21, 2014

Excerpt: Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that.

A case in point are the Müller glia cells that span the thickness of the retina. These high refractive index cells spread an absorptive canopy across the retinal surface and then shepherd photons through a low-scattering cytoplasm to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine. A new paper in Nature Communications describes how these wavelength-dependent wave-guides can shuttle green-red light to cones while passing the blue-purples to adjacent rods. The idea that these Müller cells act as living fiber optic cables has been floated previously. It has even been convincingly demonstrated using a dual beam laser trap….

…In the retina, and indeed the larger light organ that is the eye, there is much more going on than just photons striking rhodopsin photopigments. As far as absorbers, there are all kinds of things going on in there—various carontenoids, lipofuscins and lipochromes, even cytochrome oxidases in mitochondria that get involved at the longer wavelegnths….

,,In considering not just the classical photoreceptors but the entire retina itself as a light-harvesting engine… that can completely refigure (its) fine structure within a few minutes to handle changing light levels, every synapse appears as an essential machine that percolates information as if at the Brownian scale, or even below….

  1. The Wonder of Sight – April 15, 2020

Excerpt: The eye processes approximately 80% of the information received from the outside world. In fact, the eyes can handle 500,000 messages simultaneously. It happens all the time, and you don’t even have to think about it. Your eyes just do it! The eye is infinitely more complex than any man-made camera or telescope.

  1. Walk By Faith – Now See Here, Touch & Smell to Discern Good & Evil – July 6, 2018

Excerpt: “I Am Joe’s Eye” (from the Reader’s Digest series) says “For concentrated complexities, no other organ in Joe’s body can equal me … I have tens of millions of electrical connections and can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages. I gather 80 percent of all the knowledge Joe absorbs.”

  1. Fearfully and Wonderfully Made – Philip Yancey, Paul Brand

Excerpt: The brain receives millions of simultaneous reports from the eyes. When its designated wavelength of light is present, each rod or cone triggers an electrical response to the brain, which then absorbs a composite set of yes-or-no messages from all the rods and cones.

  1. Retina – Spatial encoding

Excerpt: When the retina sends neural impulses representing an image to the brain, it spatially encodes (compresses) those impulses to fit the limited capacity of the optic nerve. Compression is necessary because there are 100 times more photoreceptor cells than ganglion cells. This is done by “decorrelation”, which is carried out by the “centre–surround structures”, which are implemented by the bipolar and ganglion cells.

There are two types of centre–surround structures in the retina – on-centres and off-centres. On-centres have a positively weighted centre and a negatively weighted surround. Off-centres are just the opposite. Positive weighting is more commonly known as excitatory, and negative weighting as inhibitory.

These centre–surround structures are not physical apparent, in the sense that one cannot see them by staining samples of tissue and examining the retina’s anatomy. The centre–surround structures are logical (i.e., mathematically abstract) in the sense that they depend on the connection strengths between bipolar and ganglion cells. It is believed that the connection strength between cells is caused by the number and types of ion channels embedded in the synapses between the bipolar and ganglion cells.

The centre–surround structures are mathematically equivalent to the edge detection algorithms used by computer programmers to extract or enhance the edges in a digital photograph. Thus, the retina performs operations on the image-representing impulses to enhance the edges of objects within its visual field.

  1. JPEG for the mind: How the brain compresses visual information – February 11, 2011

Excerpt “Computers can beat us at math and chess,” said Connor, “but they can’t match our ability to distinguish, recognize, understand, remember, and manipulate the objects that make up our world.” This core human ability depends in part on condensing visual information to a tractable level. For now, at least, the brain format seems to be the best compression algorithm around.

15a. Optimised Hardware Compression, The Eyes Have It. – 2011

  1. Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance! by Dr. David Menton on August 19, 2017

Excerpt: In an article in Byte magazine (April 1985), John Stevens compares the signal processing ability of the cells in the retina with that of the most sophisticated computer designed by man, the Cray supercomputer:

“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (one hundredth of a second) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.”

  1. Looking At What The Eyes See – February 25, 2011

Excerpt: We move our eyes three times a second, over 100,000 times each day. Why isn’t life blurrier? Reporting in Nature Neuroscience, psychologist Martin Rolfs and colleagues found that our mind seems to prepare for our eye movements before they occur, helping us keep track of objects in the visual field.

  1. An Eye for Exercise Your eye is a very active organ – December 28, 2001 (HealthDayNews) — Did you know that you’d have to walk 50 miles to give your legs the same workout as the muscles in one of your eyes get in a day?
  2. How do our eyes move in perfect synchrony? By Benjamin Plackett – June 21, 2020

Excerpt: “You have a spare one in case you have an accident, and the second reason is depth perception, which we evolved to help us hunt,” said Dr. David Guyton, professor of ophthalmology at The Johns Hopkins University. But having two eyes would lead to double vision if they didn’t move together in perfect synchrony. So how does the body ensure our eyes always work together?

To prevent double vision, the brain exploits a feedback system, which it uses to finely tune the lengths of the muscles controlling the eyes. This produces phenomenally precise eye movements, Guyton said.

Each eye has six muscles regulating its movement in different directions, and each one of those muscles must be triggered simultaneously in both eyes for them to move in unison, according to a 2005 review in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. “It’s actually quite amazing when you think about it,” Guyton told Live Science. “The brain has a neurological system that is fantastically organized because the brain learns over time how much stimulation to send to each of the 12 muscles for every desired direction of gaze.”

  1. Why Only Humans Shed Emotional Tears – 2018

Abstract Producing emotional tears is a universal and uniquely human behavior…

  1. Facts About Tears – Dec. 21, 2018 Excerpt Tears Have Layers

Tears are not just saline. They have a similar structure to saliva and contain enzymes, lipids, metabolites and electrolytes. Each tear has three layers:

An inner mucus layer that keeps the whole tear fastened to the eye.

A watery middle layer (the thickest layer) to keep the eye hydrated, repel bacteria and protect the cornea.

An outer oily layer to keep the surface of the tear smooth for the eye to see through, and to prevent the other layers from evaporating.

Lacrimal glands above each eye produce your tears…

  1. How Tears Go ‘Pac-Man’ To Beat Bacteria – January 20, 2012

Excerpt: In 1922, a few years before he won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of penicillin, bacteriologist Alexander Fleming discovered in human tears a germ-fighting enzyme which he named lysozyme. He collected and crystallized lysozyme from his own tears, then wowed contemporaries at Britain’s Royal Society by demonstrating its miraculous power to dissolve bacteria before their very eyes.

“That’s a seriously bodacious experiment”…

  1. Eyelids—Intermittent Wipers – Dr. Don DeYoung – October 20, 2013

Excerpt: The blinking of our eyes is automatic and essential. Its saline washer fluid moistens and protects the outer cornea of the eye while removing dust. Other protective features include our eyebrow “umbrellas” and recessed eyeball sockets.

The average eye blinks one to two times each minute for infants and ten times faster for adults. This blinking adds up to nearly 500 million blinks over an average lifetime. The actual mechanism, however, is not well understood. It may involve a “blinking center” in the brain.

Today billions of windshield wipers duplicate the eye’s intermittent blinking. Yet none last as long or work as efficiently as our God-given eyelids.

Comments
Whatever SA2, you claim the eye is poorly designed, I say it is exquisitely designed. We disagree. Fine. Go build a better eye and prove me, (and physics), wrong. to repeat,
William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark,,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: So only known existing vision systems here on earth count in your argument? How convenient, you can speculate about why we con’t have the vision of other animals here on earth, but it unfair to further speculate as having even greater vision than the animals on earth? It's not a matter of convenience; it's a matter of being sensible. Sure we could all speculate about things that MIGHT be possible but I was NOT doing that. My whole point was: if eyes are designed and the designer created eyes that have greater acuity than ours and detection into the ultraviolet and four colour cones then CLEARLY such things could have been granted to human beings. Why weren't they? This clearly seems to be an entirely arbitrary stopping point that you are just making up. If I argue for something that we don't know is possible in our physical system then it's not really a sensible argument is it? But anyways, playing by your rules, why are not all the best attributes of all the creatures on earth not combined in just one creature, and why is that speculative creature not us? My answer: because evolution makes do with good enough a lot of the time. What's your answer from a design point of view? Are you going to say: we don't know the purpose of our design so we can't say? 'Cause that just shuts down asking those kinds of questions. And science is about asking questions. Again, you (sic) argument from imperfection fails for it demands an unreasonable threshold of perfection to be met in order for us to say that anything not meeting that threshold is perfectly designed. But I didn't argue or ask for something perfect. You seem to have a false version of my line of reasoning stuck in your head and you are going to insist that's what I meant when I clearly did not intend to go down that road. You can't argue against something I didn't say!! Well, you can but it's misguided. Using physics, I can easily find perfectly designed attributes in molecular machines of bacteria, but under your philosophical definition of perfection, you can never say anything is perfectly designed unless is possessed (sic) all attributes of all creatures on earth. I never used the word 'perfect' or 'perfection'. I don't think such a notion makes sense in the real world of biology. This is clearly a VERY unreasonable threshold for perfection that has to met (sic) under your arbitrarily chosen definition of perfection. I never used the term 'perfection' so how can you suppose to know what my definition of it is?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
If I am to take up the position of the atheist, my rebuttal is this; "I'm not the one claiming evil exists, you are. I'm not the one claiming God is all good; you are. I'm not the one saying that your all-good God is reconcilable with what you assert as "evil," you are. So, make that case." You don't get to throw it back on the atheist as if they are implicitly agreeing that what you define as straight-line good and crooked-line evil exist.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Bornagain77 “ It is interesting to note how JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection...” As I am not arguing from imperfection I will simply assume that the rest of your comment is not relevant to my question. In case you are serious about responding to questions instead of blindly repeating the same word salad, here is my question, for the third (or fourth) time. Why do ID proponents respond the way they do when people argue about poor design. A Lada is inarguably a poorly designed car. But I never hear anyone arguing that this means that it is not designed. Rather than argue with people who say that the eye or any other biological structure is poorly designed why don’t you just accept the fact that they are acknowledging that it is designed? As far as I know, ID does not make any claim about the quality of the design.Steve Alten2
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
So only known existing vision systems here on earth count in your argument? How convenient, you can freely speculate about why we can't have the vision of other animals here on earth, but it is, according to you, unfair to further freely speculate as to having even greater vision than the animals on earth? This clearly seems to be an entirely arbitrary stopping point that you are just making up in order for you to avoid having to deal with the clear Theistic implications that follow from your argument. But anyways, playing by your rules, why are not all the best attributes of all the creatures on earth not combined in just one creature, and why is that speculative creature not us? Again, your argument from imperfection fails for it demands an unreasonable threshold of perfection to be met in order for us to say that anything not meeting that threshold is perfectly designed. Using physics, I can easily find perfectly designed attributes in molecular machines of bacteria, but under your philosophical definition of perfection, you can never say anything is perfectly designed unless it possessed all attributes of all creatures on earth in a, apparently arbitrarily chosen, perfect degree. This is clearly a VERY unreasonable threshold for perfection that has to met under your arbitrarily chosen definition of perfection.bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
BA said:
Where exactly is the idea of a straight line, that atheists themselves are using to judge the world as less than perfect, coming from? And that is precisely Lewis’s point!
You and Lewis err in the same way I pointed out. You're transferring your perspective onto the atheist. The atheist argument "it's not a perfect world" doesn't relate to their views; it's an argument from the internal logic of the theist. To the atheist, the world isn't perfect or imperfect; it is what it is and they try to make it more like how they want it. It's not matter of comparing it to a "straight line" or a "perfect world." So, the atheist is not referring to their own concept of a straight line or a perfect world when they make their challenge; they are referring to the theist's perspective of "perfect world" or "straight line." That is why that particular rebuttal fails.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, as I noted, and as you ignored, in your argument, and even if we had all the attributes of vision that you listed, there is nothing within your argument that prevents you from then asking, ‘Why is our vision not even greater, i.e. more perfect’, yet?” But I'm not asking that because it doesn't make sense to ask for something I don't know is possible. That's exactly why I limited my questions to known eyes not speculative ones. You can't 'defeat' my argument by attacking a position I MIGHT take. Especially when I have explicitly said I'm not going there.JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
JVL, as I noted, and as you ignored, in your argument, and even if we had all the attributes of vision that you listed, there is nothing within your argument that prevents you from then asking, 'Why is our vision not even greater, i.e. more perfect', yet?" The only 'natural' stopping point for your argument from imperfection is once we have reached the infinitely perfect, i.e. all seeing, vision of God. And, as I further pointed out, it is precisely that unreasonable threshold, that needs to be met for perfection in your argument, that defeats your entire argument and, to boot, it is precisely that unreasonable threshold that concedes the necessary premise to the Ontological argument in order for the Ontological argument to be successful.
Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.
bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
ET: “Waiting for TWO Mutations” pertains to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with evolution by means of intelligent design. But it's based on observed mutation rates. So, from your perspective, that things were designed to evolve, aren't the observed mutation rates part of your system?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
"Waiting for TWO Mutations" pertains to evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. It has nothing to do with evolution by means of intelligent design.ET
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
We have the technology to enhance our vision to be similar to other organisms who have different vision systems. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand.ET
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
ET: JVL, I don’t care who disagrees with me. I care about what they can demonstrate. Fair enough. Not trying to get at you or your opinion/view but how does the paper you frequently cite (Waiting for two . . . mutations? You know the one.) match up with your front-loaded hypothesis? If you've got a link to a previous discussion or explanation (on your own blog perhaps) that's fine; no need to reiterate something you've already said.JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: Essentially, JVL’s and SA2’s argument from imperfection actually assumes the ‘maximally great’, all-seeing, perfection of God’s vision as the threshold of perfection that needs to be met in order for the argument to ever have a chance to be realistically satisfied. No, I compared human eyes and their capacities with other existing eyes in the animal kingdom. I did NOT assume or allude to a threshold of perfection. It seems to me that you are the one considering ultimate and perfect vision, not me. Since you believe in God that makes sense that you would have that kind of least upper bound to visual performance. I don't believe in a god or gods and so I do not have some standard of perfection to compare with. Which is why it's not part of my questions. Which is why I only ask why human eyes don't have the same 'abilities' as eyes we know to exist. I only compare and contrast things known to be able to be within the capacity of the creating process.JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
JVL, I don't care who disagrees with me. I care about what they can demonstrate.ET
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Martin_r: Obviously, human brain is using RGB color space, and obviously, our brain interprets the color pretty accurate. How do you know it's interpretation is accurate? What's your standard?JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
ET: There isn’t any evidence for a designer that keeps intervening to keep things on track. That would defeat the purpose of an impetus to research I'm not sure Dr Behe or some of the other ID proponents on this forum would agree with you but I'll let them make their own case. Anyway, I guess I understand your view, at least partially.JVL
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
So WJM, there are two concepts of evil? One for atheists, and another one for Christians? If you believe that this is rigidly true across the board, with absolutely no cross over between the two concepts, then you are missing Lewis's entire point. For us to even be able to grasp the concept of evil in the first place, we ALL, atheists and Christians alike, must first have, at the very least, some idea what good might be like. As C.S. Lewis stated, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.” Where exactly is the idea of a straight line, that atheists themselves are using to judge the world as less than perfect, coming from? And that is precisely Lewis's point! And please note that C.S. Lewis was an atheist himself before he converted to Christianity!
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” – C.S. Lewis
bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
BA77, the unresponsiveness to facts about the success and capability of the eye speaks volumes on what is really going on. KFkairosfocus
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
SA2, why do I react correctively to poor design rhetorical appeals as have been championed in recent years by the New Atheists? Because, first, they fundamentally misrepresent design, where design is critical to the progress of civilisation. You should see how I react to distorted understandings of economics, for much the same reason. Specifically, designs do not usually pivot on optimisation, because balanced trade-off to give robustly satisfactory performance is at the pivot of successful design. There is a reason why the Swiss Army Knife, the Multitool, the smart phone, the hex head screwdriver, the socket wrench set and the pc have triumphed as flexible technologies, and why a species not particularly strong or fast or well armed with teeth and claws has become the dominant species on our planet. For the success of our civilisation we need to get our understanding of design right, a valuable result in and of itself never mind what hyperskeptical, ideologically poisoned, suspicious and hostile minds trying to resolve cognitive dissonance by projecting blame to strawman caricatures of the despised other may want to think and say. Get design right. Then we can talk about other things. KFkairosfocus
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
seversky:
I would suggest that it is being just a touch disingenuous to pretend that ID proponents are not looking towards the Christian God as the original designer.
So what? ID does not require God. ID does not require the supernatural. And science doesn't care if the Designer was God or supernatural. The infinite regress gambit is that of a weak mind. We have to focus on what we have to observe and study. And AGAIN, thanks to Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, the anti-ID mob has all of the power to falsify ID just by demonstrating the mechanisms they posit can produce what ID says they cannot. Yet instead they choose to flail away at ID with their desperate and willful ignorance. And that is very telling.ET
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
JVL:
So, your version of ID is a front-loaded type where the designer is no longer intervening to keep things on track?
There isn't any evidence for a designer that keeps intervening to keep things on track. That would defeat the purpose of an impetus to researchET
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Acartia sock:
But, again, why does the designer have to be flawless?
ID doesn't say anything about the Designer. ID is about the DESIGN.ET
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
As C.S. Lewis once asked, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
This particular defense against the argument from evil is rooted a unintentional switch of perspective. The argument is not that the atheist's concept of evil exists, so God is not good; the argument is that the Theist's concept of evil exists, which internally undermines the premise of a good God. The atheist's concept of evil is subjective/relative. It's not the "evil" that is being pointed at when they make their argument. To say that the atheist is being irrational in identifying a thing and also denying that which is necessary for the thing is to not understand what the atheist is pointing at when he uses the term "evil." IOW, he's not pointing at his evil; he's pointing at the theist's evil. I have yet to see a logically sound defense of the argument from evil, and that includes KF's "privation of the good" theory, which makes zero sense. The "greater good" and the "free will" arguments are more like Rube Goldberg contraptions than sound structures of logic.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
It is interesting to note how JVL's and SA2's argument from imperfection plays out in regards to the Ontological argument. In post 36, in response to JVL's argument that the eye was an imperfect design, I pointed out that, in so far as we can tell from physics, the eye is to be considered a perfect design. As William Bialek, (a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University), stated in an article entitled "More Perfect Than We Imagined", "photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,”,,, “This is as far as it goes.”,,, Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark,,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark,,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html
And indeed, in regards to the the human eye being able to detect a single photon, it borders on being science fiction for us, as the following article states, "Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”
Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016 Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons… it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”… The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance. “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise? https://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html
In regards to the amazing fact that, as far as we can tell from physics, the eye is to be considered a 'perfect' design, the response from the atheists here on UD has been to, basically, ask, as JVL asked in post 40, 'WHY do humans have eyes that are functionally sub-par to other animal eyes?"
'WHY do humans have eyes that are functionally sub-par to other animal eyes? What reason is there that our eyes don’t have greater acuity? What reason is there that our eyes don’t have four colour detectors? What reason is there that our eyes can’t see into the ultraviolet range? I notice that NO ONE has even tried to answer those questions. Why is that? Does ID not have an answer to that question?" - JVL post 40
But notice how JVL's and SA2's argument plays into the Ontological argument for a 'maximally great Being', i.e. for God. Even if our eyes had greater acuity, four colour detectors and could see into the ultraviolet range, there is nothing to prevent JVL and SA2 from then asking, "but why is our vision not even better than that?" Essentially, JVL's and SA2's argument from imperfection actually assumes the 'maximally great', all-seeing, perfection of God's vision as the threshold of perfection that needs to be met in order for the argument to ever have a chance to be realistically satisfied. In short, JVL's and SA2's argument from imperfection fails, in a rather dramatic fashion, since their argument, (besides inadvertently assuming the reality of God in its premises), assumes the perfection that only God can possess to be present in every being that God has created. That is to say, JVL's and SA2's argument will never be satisfied unless every finite being that God has created has the infinite and perfect abilities that only God himself can possess. As should be needless to say, that is an extremely unreasonable threshold of perfection that needs to be met in order for their argument from imperfection to ever be realistically satisfied. And again, their argument does play into the ontological argument in that they are presupposing the perfection of a 'maximally great being', i.e. of God, as the threshold that needs to be met in order for their argument to ever be realistically satisfied. In short, JVL and SA2 have, unwittingly, conceded the validity of the Ontological argument as being a robust argument for the reality of God since they have, inadvertently conceded the necessary premise to the Ontological argument in order for the Ontological argument to be considered successful. As William Lane Craig explains, in order for the atheist to defeat the ontological argument, "The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square."
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4
But as JVL and SA2 themselves have proven, the concept of God is simply not incoherent to them. In fact, they themselves have presupposed the existence of God. Specifically they have presupposed the perfection of God, in their argument from imperfection. As C.S. Lewis once asked, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis
And as Van Til noted, atheists need the Christian God to even have the ability to argue against Him in the first place.
“The ultimate source of truth in any field rests in him. The world may discover much truth without owning Christ as Truth. Christ upholds even those who ignore, deny, and oppose him. A little child may slap his father in the face, but it can do so only because the father holds it on his knee. So modern science, modern philosophy, and modern theology may discover much truth. Nevertheless, if the universe were not created and redeemed by Christ no man could give himself an intelligible account of anything. It follows that in order to perform their task aright the scientist and the philosopher as well as the theologian need Christ.” – Cornelius Van Til, The Case for Calvinism p.147-148 “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.” Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).
Verse:
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan that can succeed against the LORD.
bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Sub-optimal design is still design
Yes, but how does one know what’s sub optimal?jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Sub-optimal design is still design.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Design is so obvious that there is no need to defend it. My point is that what appears to some as flawed design or sub optimal design is not necessarily either flawed or sub optimal. Flawed design or sub optimal design is always brought up for a reason. Namely, to question the intelligence or ability of the designer. I’m just pointing out that it is an invalid argument. Since we have no idea if anything is an instance of flawed or sub optimal design. ~jerry
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
Seversky @102, That what we are experiencing requires design is about as obvious as it gets. What is not so obvious is what is doing the designing. I don't think the Christian God concept can hold up to scrutiny in any argument defending it. I think the best argument for "God" is the ontological argument for "God" as the necessary ground of being/existence. However, to make that the Christian God, you have to include in that some formation of intrinsic "good" (objective morality) and "conscience" as being necessary aspects of sentient existence. Cue KF's "First Duties" argument. However, IMO that argument has been thoroughly dismantled. That isn't to say that the Christian "God" doesn't exist; it just can't be the "ontologically necessary God." It carries too much unnecessary ontological baggage, so to speak. But, the ontologically necessary God cannot be the one doing the "designing," for various reasons. The fundamental question is, what is actually being designed? Science is still in the process of figuring that out. You can't really go any farther until you can answer that question.William J Murray
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
Seversky, if you have a comparable list of arguments for atheism, please list it. In the following recent post, I addressed the only philosophical arguments for atheism that I have ever seen presented by atheists here on UD.
March 2021 Since Atheists have no real scientific evidence to support their belief in Darwinian evolution, or to support their belief that the universe spontaneously arose, ‘elite’ atheistic scientists are stuck with fallacious philosophical arguments against God that, upon close inspection, fall apart. Two of the (main) fallacious philosophical arguments against God, that Atheists are dependent on, are the ‘God of the gaps argument’, and the ‘argument from evil’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/free-excerpt-from-steve-meyers-new-book-return-of-the-god-hypothesis/#comment-726833
As to which theistic argument is my favorite, I like Aquinas's arguments, as laid out by Dr. Egnor, but in response to SA2's claim that the designer of life, (and apparently the universe?) was less than perfect, I mentioned the Ontological argument here in post 94 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727374bornagain77
April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
Bornagain77/96
SA2, since you are apparently into philosophical/theological arguments for and against God, (instead of actual scientific evidence), I think you might like a run down of the philosophical arguments for each position.
I see a list of arguments for God. I don't see a similar list of arguments against God. Is there one particular argument for God that strikes you as the strongest case? Perhaps you could set it out in more detail and we could then see how it stands up to close scrutiny.Seversky
April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13 14 16

Leave a Reply