Does it bother any atheist or evolutionists that even charles darwin said?

Question

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, i freely confess absurd. In the highest degree."
- Charles Darwin

Charles darwin also had know comprehension to just how complex the simple cell actually was. To assume these complex things just came to be, perfectly giving us everything we have. Is kind of ignorant of facts.

Answer 1

Well what gets me is this: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is exactly that! A theory! I don't know if people have either forgotten what the word "Theory" means, or simply do not know what it measn altogether. A Theory is not fact! Its more like an assumtion. While we "assume" alot of things it does not mean it is fact. People are going out of their way to try and prove that God does not exist. Well they will never be able to disprove God's existance. This is about faith. I choose to believe in God. I need nobody to show me evidence because I walk by faith not by sight.

Answer 2

Do we all take a drink?

Here is the more complete quote:
Roughly the part you used:
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 degree.

And, as Paul Harvey would say, "The Rest of the Story:"
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.

EDIT: Another drink! Puma has, as many before, either willfully or ignorantly misrepresented the meaning of "Theory" in the context of science.

Answer 3

If you actually read past that quote, and put into the context of what Darwin wrote (instead of just copying and pasting off some Creationist website) - you would see that Darwin goes on to describe, in considerable detail, exactly how an eye could form by natural selection.

Good on you for showing your ignorance by bringing up an anti-evolution argument that was debunked 150 years ago, though. Way to keep up with the times.

Answer 4

Not as much as it bothers cdesign proponentists that he followed that quote with:

"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."

Answer 5

Charles Darwin said this when...almost 150 years ago. Do you know how much science and discovery has occurred since then, especially in the fields of genetics and biology? He had only scratched the surface of the field. His word is not some 'holy scripture' that all scientists since follow...evolution is a scientific theory not some religious cult. When you get a decent science education, then you'll understand how absurd your question is.

Answer 6

Charles Darwin is responsible for many people falling away from faith in Christ. The lies that were originally told that they had found that ever changing specie and presented Pilt Down Man, Nebraska Man and Lucy, deceived many. Until DNA came along when we could actually tell by testing if bone was animal or human these lies flourished. God gave us DNA to stop the fraud. Even in a dark hour, God intervenes for man. Man cannot say "I was wrong." So evolution has been pushed to different levels. Adaptation is now called micro-evolution.

If Charles Darwin had thought he was wrong and if he would admit it, the man would have screamed the truth and begged for God's forgiveness, but he didn't. He went to his grave with his evil and he will stand in front of Almighty God at the White Throne Judgment. Charles Darwin was a great stumbling block to mankind and may the Lord rebuke him.

Answer 7

Now let's post the REST of this statement: (The part you left out.)

" 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. "

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_on_evolution_of_the_eye

Answer 8

No. We have learned a few things since Darwin's day, and now know how the eye and many other structures evolved. Evolution is now a proven fact; details are available on request (please provide an e-mail address). For a good history of evolution on this planet, see:

Answer 9

No, because the immediately following paragraphs explain exactly how the eye could have come about.

This sentence was supposed to be a rhetorical set up for his explanation of how the eye works. Fundies have come to take it out of context as some kind of argument against evolution.

Please, read the actual book and don't fall for these quote twisting tactics again.

Answer 10

No, because as atheists we know that science and knowledge grows and changes as it is added to. Its the scientific process. Unlike religion which has not moved at all since the stone age.

Answer 11

You quote out of context as many creationists do, that is lying to support belief and show beliefs are false. You discredit yourself and your beliefs with this silly routine that many know is so wrong. Read all of what Darwin say.