On the eye, the same argument proves a thing and its opposite
Laszlo Bencze writes to say, in response to Tom Bethell’s The design of the eye: Darwin’s followers want it both ways?
Evolution takes a “heads I win; tails you lose” stance.
As we all know from watching TV nature shows, millions of years of evolution lead to creatures that are perfectly adapted to their environments. They are equipped to fly, leap, sniff, mate, fight with systems remarkable for their novelty and reliability. That’s just what we would expect of evolution.
On the other hand…
When we read books and magazine articles (hardly ever does this appear in TV shows) we learn that evolution leads to many imperfect vestigial thinggies like the appendix, tonsils, backwards retinas, and junk DNA. These troublesome imperfections are remarkable for their poor design. That’s just what we would expect of evolution.
So Darwinists are in the position of telling us that not only does a certain argument prove evolution but it’s exact opposite also proves evolution equally well. My my. I wonder where logic went.
Where logic went? But logic does not exist. Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth, remember? Our minds are probably just an illusion anyway.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
and since Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of unguided processes creating even a single protein of a amazing design that is ‘remarkable for its novelty and reliability’ by unguided processes,,, then Darwinists have to rely on our imperfect knowledge, and the fact that Darwinian processes are notorious for breaking things, to argue something is ‘remarkable for its poor design’.
Trouble with that reasoning, besides the prediction of two completely contrary results, is that as our knowledge keeps increasing, there is nothing in the list, (appendix, tonsils, backwards retinas, and junk DNA) that Darwinists can point to as truly being a bad design.
appendix and tonsils
backwards retinas
junk DNA
supplemental note:
and since Darwinists have ZERO empirical evidence of unguided processes creating even a single protein of a amazing design that is ‘remarkable for its novelty and reliability’ by unguided processes,,, then Darwinists have to rely on our imperfect knowledge, and the fact that Darwinian processes are notorious for breaking things, to argue something is ‘remarkable for its poor design’.
Trouble with that reasoning, besides the prediction of two completely contrary results, is that as our knowledge keeps increasing, there is nothing in the list, (appendix, tonsils, backwards retinas, and junk DNA) that Darwinists can point to as truly being a bad design.
appendix and tonsils
backwards retinas
junk DNA
supplemental note:
Seems there are 3 views on Design.
1) It is an but an “appearance of design”
2) Design is authentic, guided, and Natural.
3) Design is authentic, guided, and Unnatural (Supernatural).
1) is NeoDarwin, Theist and Atheist 2) are the up and coming minority of “Thomas Nagel Mind&Cosmos” thinkers and nonTheist IDers,
3) are the Theist IDers.
I think the strongest Science may be with 2. 1 is biting the dust. 3, unlike 1 or 2, is dealing with issues of bad design.
Darwinism has always been the religion of liars and jackasses. Don’t get offended. It’s just my opinion and I speak my mind.
Really? You find arguments of “bad design” compelling? I would think the entire field of biomimetics would argue that “superlative design” is the rule, not otherwise. Which would seem to support 3 even over 2.
Also, I would rephrase 3 as:
3) Design was authentic, guided, supernatural, and a singular event.
Good question: where the heck did logic go? Well, it was never there. Darwin actually said that he thought it was absurd that the eye could have come about by his theory evolution but then he goes on to say how he thought it happened anyway. What a joke. The eye is irreducibly complex anyway so the logical thing to say is that God designed it. Heck, Darwin’s evolution is the opposite of logic
Well said, Mapou. Ha ha ha! Not to mention brainwashing
Drc466, I consider a myself a Theist (Christian) IDer. I don’t find the arguments of “bad design” compelling, but noted that it is an issue that comes up if you are a “3”. Not an issue with 1’s or 2’s. It is either appearance of bad design (1) or Natural bad design (2). Natural bad design is easier to shrug off than Supernatural bad design.
Something else that bugs me (scares me?) is “evil” in Nature, like that wasp that sticks a metal spike into larvae to feed it’s own brood. Yikes.
Exactly how is logic and reasoning to be grounded in a worldview that insists everything arose without any rhyme or reason? To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place. The atheistic/materialistic worldview is incoherent as to providing a rational foundation for practicing science in that it presupposes no logic or reason behind the universe.
All of which explains, number one, why there were no atheists at the founding of modern science,,
and which, number two, also explains why the atheistic explanations for how the universe came into being, and for how we ourselves came into being, both wind up in epistemological failure.
A few notes along that line:
Verse and Music:
BA77:
This is more true than you suspect. The hidden scientific knowledge that is in ancient texts will soon amaze all and radically change our world.
OT: podcast: David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 2
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_01-07_00
here’s part 1 for those who missed it:
podcast: “David Snoke: Systems Biology and Intelligent Design, pt. 1”
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_09-07_00
Exactly, bornagain77! (responding to your 1st comment) I believe in the Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God. When I think of the pure bologna of evolution, Darwin, and subsequently atheism, this makes me think of Proverbs 26:12, which says: “Have you seen a man who thinks he is wise? There is more hope for someone stupid than for him.” Ha, have to laugh at the sheer bluntness of Scripture
Something kind for your backwards retinas:
http://vimeo.com/103444038