2006-12-11 04:25:10 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No. If this was the case then I could say anything and everything complex to point to a creator. Including slugs and asses.
2006-12-11 04:26:31 · answer #1 · answered by Yngona D 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. Actually the eye is traced back through evolution. It wasn't always complex, and even now is quite fallible. All complex structures can be seen as less complex in earlier forms.
If creation of a perfect complex organism was a goal, then why do owls, and squid, have a more complex eye than humans? Why can sharks sense electrical vibrations in water for miles when humans can feel anything? Why do dogs have such an accurate sense of smell? If we are indeed a pinnacle of creation surely these should have been reserved for us.
2006-12-11 12:34:28 · answer #2 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Complexity, by itself, doesn't imply any creator. The mechanism behind how that complexity came to be might.
If you look at a watch, you can recognize some of the processes for creating such a device which were used to create the watch. We know how that happens. Therefore, we can naturally assume a watch to have been created by people.
If you look at eyes, you'll see eyes of various shapes and sizes in nature. These range from cells that are just sensitive to light up to complex eyes, like in humans, which have lens and focusing mechanisms. In looking at fossils and other species, we can see how an eye would naturally develop. We have seen similar complexity develop through a natural evolution. We have even modeled how such a progression happens. We know the mechanism there, to a great extent. Therefore, when we see an eye, we can assume that a similar evolutionary mechanism created it, not men.
For more information on this, read Richard Dawkins' book, "Climbing Mount Improbable".
2006-12-11 12:27:18 · answer #3 · answered by nondescript 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Interestingly enough, there was a show on the National Geographic channel about Darwin's theory of evolution and the complexity of the eye was discussed. The question was can the eye which is so complex, evolve from a simple form. They showed that it could, and showed the stages from beginning to end and advantages of each stage over the previous to now. So the hypothesis that highly complex forms could not evolve from simple forms over time is false, they can and do.
2006-12-11 12:47:33 · answer #4 · answered by Barry 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because there are many differnt types of eye and differing degrees of complexity from extremely simple photo receptors to eyes as complex as those of a squid. Contrary to common belief, humans do not have the most complex eye in the animal kingdom. It supports the theory of evolution a lot more than it supports creation.
2006-12-11 12:30:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes and it will not be long now b4 the entire idea of there ever being any verticle evolution will become another laughing matter like so many other widely publicized scietific debocles. Theyy once said there were no giant squids and mocked those who stated differently. When I was in HS they taught the wrong number of chromasomes. Somebody should create a page of the many supposedly scientific truths. Perhaps there is one. I know of over 50.
None as well known as this evolution theory. One day we will all look back and luugh at all these videos which talk about the past as if verticle evolution was fact.
2006-12-11 12:33:09 · answer #6 · answered by icheeknows 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No no no! There are several tested hypotheses (convergent) on stepwise eye evolution. It's not too complex and from a design standpoint it certainly isn't well designed!
Sexual repro guy: the explanation is out there, just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it's not there.
Computer analogy guy: silly because computers don't self replicate, but if they did you forget to mention the landscape littered with the remains of the pre computers that didn't work out. It's not an a to b scenerio but one of nearly infinite complexity
2006-12-11 12:29:28 · answer #7 · answered by hot carl sagan: ninja for hire 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Calculus is complex but that doesn't mean Jesus existed.
The whole story sounds like a children's fable...
There once was a women who said an angel told her she was going to have a baby boy. When the boy grew up he preformed magic turning water into wine and making bread appear out of nowhere! But there were people who didn't like him because he was telling everyone he was the son of God and so he was killed. But since he was magic he came back to life and flew to heaven. The End.
2006-12-11 12:49:05 · answer #8 · answered by IceyFlame 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Misguided people could only believe that-focus on the human eye and ignore the fact that 99% of the species that have ever existed on the planet have gone extinct. To me that statistic dispels the myth of any kind of intelligent design.
2006-12-11 12:33:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All a series of coincidences. Not just the human eye but the whole universe. It's like saying a computer got formed all alone in a cave somewhere through out millions of years, without any human interference, by a series of amazing coincidences. If you can believe this, you can believe the rest is coincidence too,
2006-12-11 12:28:42 · answer #10 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋