The Human Eye- design flaws?

[catherine]

Kurieuo, again you make some very good points. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that Christians can't be scientifically minded. I meant in terms of discussing things like evolution, the guys I debate with seem to know their biology etc.

I haven't actually debated Christianity as this seems a leap too far at the minute. I felt it best to begin with why they don't believe there is a 'Creator' and why I do. We've started with 'Irreducible Complexity' (which they maintain has not been proven scientifically and which I have agreed seems to be the case- I even emailed Behe to clarify a few points that had arisen but although he replied he did not answer my points and just provided a link, which was disappointing to say the least). We have now moved on to apparent design flaws and whilst debating these things, it became obvious I was being left behind in terms of evolution/biological references etc, hence my foray into Dawkin's world. As we are only working with the natural world at this point, I don't think I can draw upon 'supernatural' things just yet. (One guy is debating with another Christian and is very open minded and asking him why he believes etc, so they are open to good honest debate). I am aware that some (how much remains to be seen as I've only read one and a half chapters so far) of the book's contents is 'speculative'.

Thanks again. I shall bear your advice in mind, once we progress. I probably won't continue debating til after Christmas as the book could prove heavy going in parts. I shall call on your help if I may, once I start discussing things again.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo, again you make some very good points. By the way, I didn't mean to imply that Christians can't be scientifically minded. I meant in terms of discussing things like evolution, the guys I debate with seem to know their biology etc.

I haven't actually debated Christianity as this seems a leap too far at the minute. I felt it best to begin with why they don't believe there is a 'Creator' and why I do. We've started with 'Irreducible Complexity' (which they maintain has not been proven scientifically and which I have agreed seems to be the case- I even emailed Behe to clarify a few points that had arisen but although he replied he did not answer my points and just provided a link, which was disappointing to say the least). We have now moved on to apparent design flaws and whilst debating these things, it became obvious I was being left behind in terms of evolution/biological references etc, hence my foray into Dawkin's world. As we are only working with the natural world at this point, I don't think I can draw upon 'supernatural' things just yet. (One guy is debating with another Christian and is very open minded and asking him why he believes etc, so they are open to good honest debate). I am aware that some (how much remains to be seen as I've only read one and a half chapters so far) of the book's contents is 'speculative'.

Thanks again. I shall bear your advice in mind, once we progress. I probably won't continue debating til after Christmas as the book could prove heavy going in parts. I shall call on your help if I may, once I start discussing things again.

Hi Catherine,

This board seems to have a few great posters who could help, and I am happy to also help where possible. I remember when I journeyed through debating opponents... it was a great journey where I learnt a lot, but often ended up becoming intellectual games, and unsatisfying ones at that given no one would budge their opinions on anything but minute details. One's heart, peoples' life experiences, the people we admire and respect or dislike and a whole range of factors are also at play. This influences ones reasoning, what they see as evident or justified through such reasoning, how they look at the world around them and so on. Keep this in mind when you debate.

On the topic of irreducible complexity (IC), you do know that Behe himself still accepts common descent (unless things have now changed)? There is nothing incompatible with believing in both ID and evolution per se.

IC itself has perhaps been portrayed (or misunderstood) as a meaning the biological system displaying IC is without a doubt designed. It does not. IC is just a sign that something is likely designed, not absolutely without a doubt designed. There are no certainties in science. So if something exhibits signs of IC, whether biological in nature or an ancient artifact, then all others things equal what is wrong with just considering the conclusion that the protein or biological system under examination could quite possibly be designed? Nothing is wrong. However, there is lots wrong if your philosophical worldview excludes what most people would hail as the Designer if such were found to be the case. And sadly, the philosophy dominating our culture today is that of metaphysical naturalism which excludes such a Being.

If interested in IC/ID, then one video in particular I would recommend viewing is "Unlocking the Mystery of Life". A poor quality version can be watched online at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670

[catherine]

Hi Kurieuo, yes, I knew Behe accepted common descent.

'IC itself has perhaps been portrayed (or misunderstood) as a meaning the biological system displaying IC is without a doubt designed. It does not. IC is just a sign that something is likely designed, not absolutely without a doubt designed.'

This was one of the questions I asked Behe in my email, namely to clarify the meaning. Everything I have read gives the impression of certainty e.g the mousetrap is not probably designed. After analysing its component parts etc, we deduce that all are needed together etc, to serve its purpose- there is no probably about this it seems to me anyway. But as regards biological machines then yes I agree the inference for design is there.

I am aware that you can only go so far with debates of this nature, and I am wary of human philosophies, purely because our minds are limited and what we think is 'truth' or rational etc, may be because we are working with an imcomplete or inaccurate set of 'components'. I am interested to know why many seemingly intelligent people do not believe in a Creator etc. It's good to test things and make sure of things. I will watch the film you have provided the link for once I have finished reading my book. Thanks for your advice and help. It's much appreciated.

[CAT]

Hi Catherine,

Firstly, there is no bad design in the wiring of the human eye. This is purely an attack on the designer!

This is the same ole canard of the evolutionist. It would be nice if anti-creationists actually learned something about the eye before making such claims. These people are usually disqualified in both physical optics and eye atatomy. What you should be asking these people is to show you how the eye doesnt function properly as a result. I would also challenge them to design a better eye with the versatility of the vertibrate eye. This would include color perception, resolution, coping with the range of light intensity, night vision as well as day vision, the human eye is also brilliantly designed to cope with far wider ranges.

The reason our eyes are wired backwards is to stop the nerves from going behind the eye because that space is designed for whats called the "choroid" which supplies a rich blood supply to the eyes to regenerate the photoreceptors. So it is necessary for the nerves to go infront instead. The claim that this creates a blind spot and interferes with vision is blatantly false because these nerves are virtually transparent because of their small size! Rather what actually limits the eyes resolution is the defraction of light waves at the pupil... so alledged improvements of the retina would make no difference.

Now I know that evolutionists claim that cephalopod eye is somehow right or better because its reversed with the nerves behind the receptors of creatures like the octoopus or the squid, but no one who has actually studied these eyes could make such claims with integrity. In fact cephalopods dont see as well as humans, and the octopus eye is totally different and much simpler. Its more like a compound eye with a single lens.

Oh and let me also add... that the blind spot is said to be bad design. But this is not true because the blind spot occupies only a small fraction of the visual field and axis. So the alledged defect is only "theoretical". This blind spot is not even handicapped enough to stop a one eyed person from driving a motor vehicle!

Post this to your evolutionist friends and tell me what they say.

[touchingcloth]

It's ridiculous to say the human eye (or any eye, for that matter) has design flaws.
Sure it's not perfect, but it's demonstrably not been a barrier to the human population propagating itself for 200K years.