2005-04-04

Evolution Part I

Is Evolution Credible? Today I post the first in a series on the theory of evolution, and "The Origin of Species," Darwin's work on this theory. These articles are taken from equip.org and are helpful in sifting through information when weighing the validity of evolutionary claims. I would add that this and the next 2 posts can be found as originally published in an excellent book titled "The FACE that Demonstrates the FARCE of Evolution" by Hank Hanegraaff. You can view each of the articles in its entirety by clicking the title of the post above.
Eye

In his landmark publication, The Origin of Species, Darwin avowed, “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 possible.”8 He called this dilemma the problem of “organs of extreme perfection and complication.”9 Consider for a moment the incredible complexity of the human eye. It consists of a ball with a lens on one side and a light sensitive retina made up of rods and cones inside the other. The lens itself has a sturdy protective covering called a cornea and sits over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light. The eye contains a fantastic watery substance that is replaced every four hours, while tear glands continuously flush the outside clean. In addition, an eyelid sweeps secretions over the cornea to keep it moist, and eyelashes protect it from dust.10 It is one thing to stretch credulity by suggesting that the complexities of the eye evolved by chance; it is quite another to surmise that the eye could have evolved in concert with myriad other coordinated functions. As a case in point, extraordinarily tuned muscles surround the eye for precision motility and shape the lens for the function of focus.11 Additionally, consider the fact that as you read this article, a vast number of impulses are traveling from your eyes through millions of nerve fibers that transmit information to a complex “computer center” in the brain called the visual cortex. Linking the visual information from the eyes to motor centers in the brain is crucial in coordinating a vast number of bodily and mental functions that are part and parcel to the very process of daily living. Without the coordinated development of the eye and the brain in a synergistic fashion the isolated developments themselves become meaningless and counterproductive.12 In Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe points out that what happens when a photon of light hits a human eye was beyond nineteenth-century science. Thus, to Darwin, vision was an unopened black box.13 In the twentieth century, however, the black box of vision has been opened, and it is no longer enough to consider the anatomical structure of the eye. We now know that “each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes” that demand explanation.14 Behe goes on to demonstrate that one cannot explain the origin of vision without first accounting for the origin of the enormously complex system of molecular mechanisms that make it work.15 Phillip Johnson, author of Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, has aptly summarized Darwin’s dilemma regarding the eye: “Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation.”16

8Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, chap. 6, “Difficulties of the Theory,” sect. “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication,” in Robert Maynard Hutchins, ed., Great Books of the Western World, vol. 49, Darwin (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 85. 9Ibid. Of course, Darwin’s life work intended to show that all biological organisms, with their attending “organs of extreme perfection and complication,” were indeed formed through natural selection. 10Eye description adapted from Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 101–2. 11See ibid., 98–103. 12See Coppedge, 218–20; Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), 332–33. 13Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 18. “Black box” is Behe’s term for a device that accomplishes a purpose but whose inner workings remain mysterious. For the average person, computers are a good example of a black box (p. 6). 14Ibid., 22 (see 15–22). 15In ibid., 18–21, Behe describes the biochemistry of vision. 16Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 77.

3 Comments:

Blogger Mike said...

Speaking of straw men.....LOL You have built several in the post above. You stated things that the article I posted didn't say....one case-in-point, "To imagine that the human eye is the best one is without basis in fact."

No such statement is made about the human eye being superior to any other eye.

Another case-in-point, "Your assumption that nature must have either an eye, or not an eye is a false dichotomy...there are simply too many natural examples of other types of eyes. Thus it takes little imagination to see how the human eye could have evolved through various stages of complexity, since God has already provided us with examples these stages of complexity in the natural world.

Though you're still arguing against a statement I never made, other "types" of eyes do not refute the complexity of the eye in general. Secondly where did the idea of "nature must have an eye or not an eye" come from? I never stated such, neither did the article...Thirdly, in stark contrast to your statement "it takes little imagination to see how the human eye could have evolved through various stages of complexity"....it indeed takes quite an imagination to believe that something of such complexity could happen by chance.....which is the whole point of the article (which, evidently, you did not actually read.)

You stated earlier you were not an "evolutionist.." but continue to make statements such as "Evolution is a theory (notice I use the correct term "theory" not "hypothesis" -- these words have different meanings.) and it is the best explanation we have today." so which is it? Are you or aren't you? Secondly, as I will show in posts to come, as time has marched on and the so-called "black boxes" of evolution have been opened...the scientists of our age, being more enlightened with time, have rejected the theory. In the meantime, might I suggest that you actually read the articles instead of assuming you know what is said and building your own "straw men" to argue against? More to come......

11:06 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

What you fail to mention, Alan, is that evolution is rarely taught as mere theory in our schools. And secondly, that, as a theory, it has to be taught as a belief. You are confusing evolution with science...not me. Science uses scientific method creating reproducible facts. Evolution does not do this. In turn, then, it DOES, in fact, become a system of belief. It would seem that one of the definitions of the word, theory, in Webster's Dictionary "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" would agree with me...LOL but since I already know of your distaste for Greek lexicons, you probably reject the English dictionary as well.......LOL

11:46 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Yes, it is becoming clear that you what you state and what you practice are 2 different things. You say you don't "believe" in evolution and yet defend it to the hilt......So the conclusion has to be A. You, in fact, do "believe" in evolution, or B. You are engaging in a pointless semantics debate.

1:57 PM  

<< Home