atheists? the human eye?A must read!?

Question

The retina of your eye is less than 1 sqaure inch yet it contains over 137,000,000 light sensitive cells! How would you like to be the electrician that wired that up!
" To suppose that the eye could have evolved by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Charles Darwin- The orgin of Species pg. 217

How could the eye evolve?
read this from this web site..

http://www.rae.org/HumanEye.html

tell me what you guys think, but read from this site first..Thanks

Answer 1

The human experience has taught us one thing that so many are unwilling to admit. The deeper we dig into a matter in an attempt to disprove God the deeper we must dig to continue that attempt. The simple, child-like faith of our ancestors will out-shine the resigned admissions of future skeptics.
You know, not many people will take the time to read and try to understand the information in your provided link. Fewer still will make any effort to give an honest conclusion. Immaturity will continue passing judgement and many uninformed will be led astray by nay-sayers. In the meantime, God's creation continues according to His plan.

Answer 2

I'll be honest. I didn't read it.

Think of evolution as a mountain. On top there is something complex, like the human eye. Creationists like to use "sky-cranes" that take them from nothing to the eye, instantly, with a God.

I think of it as it is a gradual slope, or Mount Improbable, if you like. Somewhere, a mutation occured that allowed an animal to see some sort of light. Was this useful? You bet! It no longer walked into deep crevices or into anything solid, perhaps. So this organism lived and reproduced, while its brethen died off from walking of cliffs. Soon more of the species have rudimentary "eyes" that can sense light. So, eventually, another animal has a mutation, and it can see shapes! Is this useful? Yes sir! So, it reproduces, because its brethen are still doing stupid things because they can't see anything other than light. Not to mention it can see the opposite sex of it's species a lot better!
Do that for a couple million years, and you get the normal human eye.
Therefore, we walked gradually up the slope of Mount Improbable, and eventually reached out goal-the human eye, in all its glorious detail, and imperfections. We are still evolving, after all!

Answer 3

How about we let Darwin correct your using his words against him by using his own words?

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. "

Do you think he stopped there? No, he didn't. He continues...


"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

Answer 4

Ah I love the human eye example. Do you think that humans have the best vision of all species? Not really, eagles have better vision. Our eyes (and all mammals) evolved by simply following the light. Our eyes are very limited because we can only see in the visible light spectrum. Light keeps going in both directions from the spectrum, we can't see them. So do you still think our eyes are the proof of a creator? I don't think so. The more you look the more you will see how we really are.

Answer 5

If you believe the whole eye complexity argument then you haven't read any contemporary evolutionist books. Let me ask you this; what is more likely: to evolve an eye through a long process of sorting mutations based on their survival advantages, or to have the eye instantaneously created by some being who violates all the laws of physics in order to do so.

Answer 6

The eye could very well evolve from a single light sensitive cell to the complex organ it is today. Of course it took billions of years.
Or you prefer to think that God really sat at the drawing table to design all the different kind of eyes that exist?
I think God was much smarter than that.
He simply set the laws that allowed life and evolution to happen everywhere in the universe.

Answer 7

This is a very old, very false, and repeatedly discredited argument against evolution. It sounds "brilliant" and "intelligent" and indisputable, until you know the facts and look at them with an honest, open mind. Once (and if) you do you will realize that it is a false and classic "strawman" argument which takes advantage of many people's preconceived religious prejudices, and their lack of knowledge and/or understanding about science and evolution. I suggest that you do some research on the web, and not just at religion-based websites, if you really want to evaluate evolution honestly.

Answer 8

The most fascinating and compelling evidence in favor of evolution may be the fact that those who criticize it have to lie to make their argument.

Since coming here I have been nothing but disappointed in the poor arguments made both in favor of the existence of god and against evolution.

I'm a non-theist and accept the evidence for evolution and yet I could easily make a much better argument than any I have ever read here both in favor of the existence of god and against evolution. And yet I could then make a still better arguments against those.

If in the end no one has anything to support those two notions why make what could barely be considered a strawman argument? Why not simply say "I believe in god and don't accept evolution"? In the end there would be no argument against your stance and you wouldn't look so desperate.

Answer 9

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
This is from PBS, which I believe we can agree is an unbiased source. Your link is from a group called Revolution Against Evolution.
See the difference?

Please read The Origin of the Species for yourself before trying to dismiss the Theory outright.

Answer 10

Chaos Theory explains this very well

Next