the fact that organisms can see with eyes proves intelligent design

lukeman · Aug 4, 2009

organisms can't by evolution alone harness light waves into actual vision through evolution/natural selection/adaptation because light waves travel at one billion miles per second, if you were to ask an engineer to try and design a way to harness light waves into vision in a biological eyeball he wouldn't have a clue so how could evolution start from no vision to the human eye ball which can't be made any better happen?-This proves intelligent design.
Also what process of mutation/evolution could even think of a sense of sight being useful to the simple organism?

Along with all the other senses organisms have it makes it even more unlikely that adaptation gave us these abilities. Am i not right??

God created every creature.

Assyrian · Aug 4, 2009

First time I have heard someone argue that because an engineer couldn't think it up it must be designed.

It doesn't matter the speed light travels at, it is what happens when a photon hits the organism. If some of the molecules are photosensitive they will react when hit by light. Adapting to chemical released by the photolytic reaction is much easier than a single celled engineer having to think up a way to harness light travelling at 186,000 miles per second.

Have you ever considered the possibility that evolution really does work and is in fact The Designer's cleverest design? Welcome to the forum Lukeman, I hope you enjoy your time here.

Mallon · Aug 4, 2009

So... does the fact that some humans can't see mean they're unintelligently designed?

lukeman · Aug 4, 2009

Assyrian said:
First time I have heard someone argue that because an engineer couldn't think it up it must be designed.

It doesn't matter the speed light travels at, it is what happens when a photon hits the organism. If some of the molecules are photosensitive they will react when hit by light. Adapting to chemical released by the photolytic reaction is much easier than a single celled engineer having to think up a way to harness light travelling at 186,000 miles per second.

Have you ever considered the possibility that evolution really does work and is in fact The Designer's cleverest design? Welcome to the forum Lukeman, I hope you enjoy your time here.

I have thrown around the idea of evolution being guided by god or god giving the first organisms the ability to evolve from the begining but im trying to take the seven days of creation as more of a literal sense right now you know how he created animals one day and rested on the 7th day? etc.
That's my goal.

Also even the ability of translating photons into vision is equally impressive. (trust me)

Sphinx777 · Aug 4, 2009

Eyes are organs that detect light, and send signals along the optic nerve to the visual and other areas of the brain. Complex optical systems with resolving power have come in ten fundamentally different forms, and 96% of animal species possess a complex optical system. Image-resolving eyes are present in cnidaria, molluscs, chordates, annelids and arthropods.

The simplest "eyes", such as those in unicellular organisms, do nothing but detect whether the surroundings are light or dark, which is sufficient for the entrainment of circadian rhythms. From more complex eyes, retinal photosensitive ganglion cells send signals along the retinohypothalamic tract to the suprachiasmatic nuclei to effect circadian adjustment.

Assyrian · Aug 4, 2009

lukeman said:
I have thrown around the idea of evolution being guided by god or god giving the first organisms the ability to evolve from the begining but im trying to take the seven days as more of a literal sense right now.
That's my goal.

Interesting turn of phrase that Luke, what do you mean by trying to take the seven days in a more literal sense? It sounds like you are trying to explore different ways to understand Genesis, which is great. But it is worth remembering there there is nothing in scripture that says the days in Genesis should be interpreted literally, and I don't know of anyone in scripture who interpreted them that way.

You know it is not the first time Christianity has run up against the problem of science showing us a literal interpretation was wrong. The answer has never been to deny science and hold on to our traditions, but to find better way interpret scripture. We tend to forget just how big an issue Copernicus was for the church, it overturned a literal interpretation of geocentric passages that had been unquestioned over the previous 1500 years of church history. But however literal or established in tradition it was, the interpretation was simply wrong, and the only damage the church suffered came through trying to fight against the science as the Catholic Church did when it tried Galileo before the inquisition or when Luther called Copernicus a fool for ignoring the plain meaning of the sun standing still for Gideon. On the other hand finding new ways to interpret these passages only served to deepen our understanding of God's word.

Also even the ability of translating photons into vision is equally impressive.

But it has been evolving for more then half a billion years...

lukeman · Aug 4, 2009

Mallon said:
So... does the fact that some humans can't see mean they're unintelligently designed?

No.

Mallon · Aug 4, 2009

lukeman said:
No.

Are you saying that someone who cannot see it just as intelligently designed as someone who can?

philadiddle · Aug 4, 2009

Engineers can capture light with many different devices. Cameras, webcams, even robotics that can detect facial features and recognize people. So there goes part of your argument. As for the other part, volvox algae has been observed to evolve eye spots. So not only can engineers capture light, but the evolution of light sensitive biological structures from structures that can't detect light has been observed.

lukeman · Aug 4, 2009

Mallon said:
Are you saying that someone who cannot see it just as intelligently designed as someone who can?

ummmmmm, not sure.

lukeman · Aug 4, 2009

Sphinx777 said:
eyes are organs that detect light, and send signals along the optic nerve to the visual and other areas of the brain. Complex optical systems with resolving power have come in ten fundamentally different forms, and 96% of animal species possess a complex optical system. Image-resolving eyes are present in cnidaria, molluscs, chordates, annelids and arthropods.

The simplest "eyes", such as those in unicellular organisms, do nothing but detect whether the surroundings are light or dark, which is sufficient for the entrainment of circadian rhythms. From more complex eyes, retinal photosensitive ganglion cells send signals along the retinohypothalamic tract to the suprachiasmatic nuclei to effect circadian adjustment.

thanks for describing how God designed the eye to work. Also notice how the eye capability matches the organisms functionality or their role in the world and doesn't waste eye functionality if the organism doesn't need it. Example- some animals can see in the dark and are color blind and humans can see in color but don't need to see in the dark like a cat.

Mallon · Aug 4, 2009

lukeman said:
ummmmmm, not sure.

Well, if eyesight proves intelligent design of an organism, then a lack of eyesight must surely disprove intelligent design of an organism. You can't have it both ways.

thanks for describing how God designed the eye to work. Also notice how the eye capability matches the organisms functionality or their role in the world and doesn't waste eye functionality if the organism doesn't need it. Example- some animals can see in the dark and are color blind and humans can see in color but don't need to see in the dark like a cat.

You should read the writings of Georges Cuvier. You'd love him.

lukeman · Aug 4, 2009

I mean as when sight or vision was first created and the first organism had it that proves intelligent design it doesn't matter if one organism doesn't have the ability to see.

Mallon said:
Well, if eyesight proves intelligent design of an organism, then a lack of eyesight must surely disprove intelligent design of an organism. You can't have it both ways.

You should read the writings of Georges Cuvier. You'd love him.

who's he? maybe I'll check him out.

philadiddle · Aug 5, 2009

lukeman said:
thanks for describing how God designed the eye to work. Also notice how the eye capability matches the organisms functionality or their role in the world and doesn't waste eye functionality if the organism doesn't need it.

Well, the mole has eyes but they are completely functionless. They are a remnant of their common ancestry with other organisms that have functioning eyes. They are a vestigal structure. Since having something functional and complex must mean a designer, does having a functionless eye in every individual within a species that can only be explained by evolution mean that there is no designer?

lukeman said:
Example- some animals can see in the dark and are color blind and humans can see in color but don't need to see in the dark like a cat.

Then moles shouldn't have eyes at all. It's just something to get infected and cause problems for the individual. Was it designed that way or is it the remains of evolution?

Or could we consider that maybe evolution is not at odds with theism?

lukeman · Aug 5, 2009

Mallon said:
Well, if eyesight proves intelligent design of an organism, then a lack of eyesight must surely disprove intelligent design of an organism. You can't have it both ways.

You should read the writings of Georges Cuvier. You'd love him.

philadiddle said:
Well, the mole has eyes but they are completely functionless. They are a remnant of their common ancestry with other organisms that have functioning eyes. They are a vestigal structure. Since having something functional and complex must mean a designer, does having a functionless eye in every individual within a species that can only be explained by evolution mean that there is no designer?

Then moles shouldn't have eyes at all. It's just something to get infected and cause problems for the individual. Was it designed that way or is it the remains of evolution?

Or could we consider that maybe evolution is not at odds with theism?

well i watched a show on like TBN or another church channel and what they said was they have proof of animals loosing features but it's impossible to gain features or body parts.
The mole might actually have some use of the eye like a bat. Also i have also thought of maybe the mole won't loose it's eyes altogether if it doesn't need them so that when it does need them if maybe it chooses to live above ground more millions of years later it can more easily obtain sight from somewhat of existing eyes.

Mallon · Aug 5, 2009

lukeman said:
I mean as when sight or vision was first created and the first organism had it that proves intelligent design it doesn't matter if one organism doesn't have the ability to see.

The point is, if intelligent design is a scientific theory, as its proponents espouse, then it should be falsifiable. But if you're going to take the position that everything is designed despite the evidence, then ID is unfalsifiable. It's useless that way.

who's he? maybe I'll check him out.

He's a 19th century naturalist. He felt that every biological structure was designed to fulfill some specific function.

well i watched a show on like TBN or another church channel and what they said was they have proof of animals loosing features but it's impossible to gain features or body parts.

They lied.

Smidlee · Aug 5, 2009

One of the best evidence that the eye does support ID is Dawkin's "The God Delusion". Dawkin would love to see strong evidence of the evolution of the eye as he would no doubt write a whole book rubbing it in our face. Since it seems from the beginning complex eye existed he had to settle with attacking theists head on.

Mallon · Aug 5, 2009

Smidlee said:
One of the best evidence that the eye does support ID is Dawkin's "The God Delusion". Dawkin would love to see strong evidence of the evolution of the eye as he would no doubt write a whole book rubbing it in our face. Since it seems from the beginning complex eye existed he had to settle with attacking theists head on.

Read chapter 5 of Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.

philadiddle · Aug 5, 2009

lukeman said:
well i watched a show on like TBN or another church channel and what they said was they have proof of animals loosing features but it's impossible to gain features or body parts.

There are many examples of organisms gaining features. One example is the nylon bug. It developed a new enzyme to that it could ingest a man made material.

lukeman said:
The mole might actually have some use of the eye like a bat. Also i have also thought of maybe the mole won't loose it's eyes altogether if it doesn't need them so that when it does need them if maybe it chooses to live above ground more millions of years later it can more easily obtain sight from somewhat of existing eyes.

You make it sound as if populations choose how they are going to evolve. Evolution itself isn't holding onto the eye of the mole for any predetermined future use. You are making things up to support your view.

lukeman · Aug 5, 2009

philadiddle said:
There are many examples of organisms gaining features. One example is the nylon bug. It developed a new enzyme to that it could ingest a man made material.

You make it sound as if populations choose how they are going to evolve. Evolution itself isn't holding onto the eye of the mole for any predetermined future use. You are making things up to support your view.

it was just a hypothesis of mine....

the fact that organisms can see with eyes proves intelligent design

Junior Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Drumming circles around you

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Drumming circles around you

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Drumming circles around you

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency