Evolution Intelligent Design News

The design of the eye: Darwin’s followers want it both ways?

Spread the love

Further to: The alleged poor design of the eye – JL Wile (where, in reality, the retina is revealed as an optimal structure), Tom Bethell kindly writes to say,

The allegedly poor design of the eye, or retina, has been cited by Dawkins, Coyne, Kenneth Miller and no doubt dozens of others, as support for Darwinism.

Notice how the evolutionists want to have it both ways. Natural Selection is their explanation of “apparent design.” So “good design” illustrates the efficacy of Natural Selection. But “bad design” is also to be expected if Nature is the designer. Why is that? Step-by-step improvement is the essence of Darwinism. Paul Nelson wrote some years back, quoting Kenneth Miller:

“If natural selection, but not an intelligent designer, created organisms, we should observe ‘organs and systems . . . that have obvious flaws, mistakes, and redundancies,’ as holdovers from earlier, different functions of the organ or system. Miller illustrates this point with several examples: the ‘backwards’ retina of the human eye (with its photoreceptors facing the ‘wrong way round’) , . . .”

An Intelligent Designer, on the other hand, is expected to attain perfection. Therefore, “design,” whether it is good or bad, shows that
Darwin was right. Natural selection can achieve the former, but an Intelligent Designer would have avoided the latter.

So natural selection is better than design because it can account for either good or bad design, or no design at all? And it doesn’t even matter that something that can account for everything can account for nothing?

No wonder this ended up being the doctrine taught in failing public schools.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “The design of the eye: Darwin’s followers want it both ways?

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    Well, but of course they want it both ways. Darwinistas are both possessive and ingestive of their baked culinary delights.

  2. 2
    Joe says:

    And speaking of having it both ways- I have a contributor to Skeptic Ink who rails against free will but calls himself a free thinker.

    It seems that to him a free thinker is anyone who not only rejects religion but also you have to accept materialism, ie the premise that everything in the universe and the universe itself, can be accounted for by matter, energy and what emerges from their different interactions. And free will is somehow not required to be a free thinker.

    I am not making this up. The tard, it burns…

Leave a Reply