Is the human eye really am amazing proof of intelligent design?

1. 77

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
   
   Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
   
   Taken from:
   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … 11_01.html

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      the octopus has a superior eye to us.  Some animals even see more colour than us

      replyreport
2. 77

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   Sorry *an not am in the title
   oops!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      well am too works in your case...you have always been amazing hubber...

      replyreport
      1. 77

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Why thank you
         You are also an amazing hubber, lots of fun to exchange ideas and chat with

         replyreport
3. 88

   wildernessposted 13 years ago

   There is a good deal in the human design that is botched up, not just the eye.  You make a good point about intelligent design here - any designer didn't pay very good attention or was really sloppy!

   replyreport
4. 66

   aka-djposted 13 years ago

   Ahh. I see.
   You guys want to see perfection in design.
   Any flaws in us must be as a result of a faulty designer.
   I get it.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Only if God is supposed to be perfect.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There couldn't be another explanation for any imperfections.
         Could there?

         replyreport
         1. 77

            kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Not if God created me, from scratch, in his image, with the purpose of worshiping blindly, yes I do need to see a little perfection in the design. It sure is hard to worship, as perfect, a designer who designs with such obvious flaws. Remember, we are supposed to made in Gods image, if God is perfect and we are in that image then there shouldn't be so many obvious flaws. Unless of course, we are not made in Gods image, or God isn't actually perfect. Which do you think it is?

            replyreport
            1. 66

               aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               A third option!

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  The third option I can think of does not paint God in a very good light.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     One of the first two options means a different understanding of God and our creation, the next option I see is a sadist option. If there is a God do you want to think of him as a sadist who created you flawed, holds you responsible for those flaws and punishes you accordingly, with blind worship being your only chance, of course if you say the wrong prayers, participate in the wrong rituals or call him by the wrong name then not only have you wasted all that time in your life but you still get sent to hell.

                     replyreport
                     1. 66

                        aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        So that's your third option.
                        
                        Where do you go from here?
                        
                        Rejection of Him I suppose.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           I embrace the deity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - which was obviously drunk when created the universe, to account for all the examples of unintelligent design.
                           
                           My FSM is gluten-free, because I am celiac - there we go, have made the first denomination

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              I do love that flying Spaghetti Monster! I eat his relatives often

                              replyreport
            2. 58

               fits3x100posted 13 years agoin reply to this

               hmmm. When a child eats  poison they die. Could it be possible you were perfect, but very shortly afterwords you became faulted? That perhaps the choices of those responsible for you, and finally your own choices when you became responsible for them, continued the destructive work began in the Garden?
               Ever take a really close look at the Beaver? A Bobcat or Otter? The Red fox is one of my favorites. On very close examination of these creatures it seems far too simple to believe in natural selection as the only process involved in their development. To many things simply don't jive with natural selection as the only force at work here.
               Just the apex predators in our area cause be to wonder. How is it that the Fox, Coyote, Bobcat, Wolf, and Eagle, all share the same range and diet  with few exceptions? In the spring they go on den raids in order to kill the young of their competitors. They all eat rabbits, mice, voles,moles,turkey,grouse,songbirds,frogs,crayfish,berries,raccoons,etc...and yet, on close examination they are so very different that only the wolf and coyote are believed to have successfully crossbreed.
               Never mind trying to explain heroic behavior and how that flies in the face of natural selection. Natural selection is indeed a real deal...happens everyday...but when you take the best part of a Bobcat and cross it with a Fox...or Eagle or Coyote...let me know. Until then, for me anyway, it takes more faith to believe in a Macro Evolutionary Universe than an Intelligently Designed Universe.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  so much death....so sad that creatures have to murder each other to survive

                  replyreport
            3. 83

               pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Perhaps the image is not the external image everyone keeps pointing to. God is spirit according to the bible. Since no one can analyze the perfection or lack of perfection of spirit. How can the flaws be obvious?
               
               If man was made in Gods image and it "was" a physical body, wouldn't we all look the same? Or at least men?
               
               That would mean God has many bodys many faces. mmm

               replyreport
            4. 74

               lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               kirstenblog, your logic engine is misfiring.
               
               First of all, you haven't defined "perfection." As I said elsewhere, God's idea of perfect is not necessarily the same as your idea of perfect.
               
               And you assume, just because you think of yourself as that body of yours, that the body is the "image" referred to in Genesis. Tain't so!
               
               If God exists, then He is a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation. That would make each of us non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. God loves his children, not the bodies they wear.
               
               Does God exist? I've met Him a few times. We've even kicked around a few miracles together for old time's sake. And like Baileybear suggested, the God I met was nothing like that portrayed in the Bible. Two possibilities there: (1) the Bible is full of stuff (expletive suggested), or (2) the Bible contains a deeper wisdom which requires some honest hard work to find it. From my experience, like any good scientist, such research (#2) requires humility and restraint--no ego allowed.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            AKA Winstonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Sure - it's called evolution.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               aka-djposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Now why didn't I think of that?
               I must be stupid, or something.
               I thought the subject was "intelligent design".
               Kinda leaves evolution out of the discussion.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Baileybearposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  do you consider human tails intelligent design?  Extra breasts/nipples?  That most people need their vision corrected?

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Depends on the purpose of that design. And no one seems to be talking "purpose," here. I find nothing unintelligent about human tails, and other so-called "flaws." I'm partially-blind in one eye and had a missing "permanent" tooth which required a bridge in my mouth when the baby tooth fell out. Yet, I can see all kinds of perfection there. Perfection to me has nothing to do with all the body parts in place and all the "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed.
                     
                     If God exists, he loves his children, not the bodies they wear. I feel for you that you got a raw deal this time with your body. Stuff happens. And even that can be perfect.
                     
                     Personally, I don't believe the "creationist's" view of ID. That's crazy, pseudo-scientific claptrap. They're merely trying to sell their own egotistical view of the Bible. Something BIG got lost in the translation. Something called "reality."
                     
                     Science gives us a lot of answers. Personally, though, I don't think the Big Bang was an accident of the big Nothing. Nothingness cannot lead to somethingness. I find space and time to be particularly perfect, even when they become a little bent out of shape around black holes and other, large gravitational wells.

                     replyreport
5. 74

   lone77starposted 13 years ago

   Kirstenblog made a good point. The eye is a flawed design from some viewpoints. Being partially blind in one eye, I can relate to that.
   
   The intent of "Intelligent Design" (ID) was that of supporting a very limiting (narrow) interpretation of the Bible. It seems that some are willing to lie to themselves rather than admit that they were wrong. They equate themselves being wrong with the Bible being wrong. That is so illogical.
   
   How many conflicting interpretations of the Bible are there? Thousands, if not millions! Even within the ID camp, there are variations on that theme. What if they're all wrong? Logically, only one interpretation can be right, but that's no guarantee that any of them are right.
   
   Likely God's idea of perfection and a mortal human's idea of perfection are entirely different. For instance, a broken cup is perfectly that cup broken. One man's suffering might merely be the "sword" he had used on others in an earlier life. In that suffering is an opportunity for humility--an opportunity to put away "swords" (ego) altogether. See? Perfect.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      More likely too that Gods image has been misinterpreted

      replyreport
      1. 74

         lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Penny, a most vital point you've made.
         
         From experience and exegetical research I find that God is a non-physical, spiritual and immortal source of creation. That would make each of us inherently non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation.
         
         Many believers shy away from this because they think this is blasphemy. It is only blasphemy to equate this child of God with the mortal (false) ego-self.
         
         This is why God loves us and not our bodies. Even the atheists seem to get this wrong, by focusing on the physical rather than the spiritual. An understandable mistake on their part, but nonetheless wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            pennyofheavenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I agree wholeheartedly. It points to spirit a lot in the bible. "God is spirit" still seems to be overlooked by many. The ego is such a powerful thing.

            replyreport
6. 58

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   kirstenblog wrote:
   Not if God created me, from scratch, in his image, with the purpose of worshiping blindly, yes I do need to see a little perfection in the design. It sure is hard to worship, as perfect, a designer who designs with such obvious flaws. Remember, we are supposed to made in Gods image, if God is perfect and we are in that image then there shouldn't be so many obvious flaws. Unless of course, we are not made in Gods image, or God isn't actually perfect. Which do you think it is?
   
   aka-dj   wrote ...
   
   A third option!
   
   
       Jerami  wrote
   
      We can take any perfect life form, and allow it to soak in  contaminants and pollutants of its own making;  and imperfections are bound to appear in its lifetime or in generations to come.

   replyreport
7. 58

   Jeramiposted 13 years ago

   Check out  Iridology and see if you still do not think that the eyes are an amazing, truly amazing thing?
   
      It is believed that by examining a photograph of your iris A doctor can determine the general well being (or not) of your internal organs.
   
      If a simple photograph can tell a doctor of such things,  Imagine them being a set of gages that our subconscious mind is looking at from the inside out.
       Like a set of gages sitting right there in front of the brain.   The brain then recognized a problem and then proceeds to do its self healing thing that the human body seems to be able to do on its own.   Kinda like a ck. engine light on a car. But much more technical.

   replyreport
8. 50

   paarsurreyposted 13 years ago

   Is the human eye really am amazing proof of intelligent design?
   
   Definitely it is designed intelligently by Allah- the Creator God.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So why would this proof be so flawed?
      I mean even a person with the best eyesight by human standard is pretty rubbish compared with certain animals. The design of our eyes is not very efficient, very vulnerable to defects and very prone to weakening so that most people wind up needed glasses at some point.

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Other animal needed better eyesight; so Creator-God bestowed them with that. He knew that man does not need that perfect eyesight, so He did not give it to man.

         replyreport
9. 51

   procreatorposted 11 years ago

   Can anyone please list down the criteria of the perfect eye? And i wish the by very soon you will have those eyes.

   replyreport
10. 60

    Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

    We can't see small details far away, we can't see very small things right in front of us, we can barely see at night, and the slightest error in our eyes' development completely ruins our chances of seeing anything at all.
    
    If human eyes were designed by an intelligent creator, then that intelligent creator is an arsehole.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Emile Rposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Hmm. We can see. Obviously well enough to survive and progress. I'd say, if there were an intelligent creator he'd wonder what kind of arsehole would feel the need to call him one.

       replyreport
11. 51

    procreatorposted 11 years ago

    I respect your views about human eye, but for me it was perfect and i don't need more enhancements on it. I believe that the eye has blind spot and I even know it during my childhood. The reasons why i consider the eye as one of intelligent design are:
    1. The eye can move focus on its subject and to make you concentrate to a certain area. Imagine if you are reading a book and your eyes have a wide angle of focus like a DSLR camera, again you will end-up complaining.
    2. It was provided in pair to compensate to minimize the blind spots, and to provide optimal focusing and enhance color details for us to see the wonder of this world.
    3. Only human eye can see the natural landscape of nature.
    4. Perfectly located at the top of our body.
    
    When you say you can't see small details far away, are you talking about the fruits hanging in the trees in the mountain more than a kilometer away? If this is the case, you will end up hurting your self always as you will no longer aware of your surrounding when you are walking, running or climbing if your focus is at far and you will end-up asking of having image stabilization because you can hold your head steadily.
    When you say you can't see small things in front, are you talking about the things smaller than a period "."? The smaller period that a computer can render in one pixel regardless of color.
    
    BTW, the eye can be lock to steadily focus on its subject but the DSLR that was intelligently designed by not only one engineer can not.
    
    peace guys!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       All those falcons with eyesight many times better than ours must be disappointed.

       replyreport
    2. 88

       wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You might change your mind about not wanting enhancements when the ability to read disappears just half way through your life.  Or you get cataracts (which everyone will get if they live long enough) and you lose ALL your sight. 
       
       Considering that half the eyes in the country need man's help to work even close to how they should I'd say enhancements are very necessary.

       replyreport
12. 51

    rob chambersposted 11 years ago

    the human eye wasn't just created from scratch. it evolved over hundred of millions of years.  if you want to see how this developed you start with simpler organisms with a simple light sensitive patch of cells.

    replyreport
13. 80

    SamboRamboposted 7 years ago

    I believe my contribution is unique to the rest of the posts. Just one question:
    
    The visual receptor cells on the retina are hidden behind other retinal cells. Therefore, our vision is normally unclear. The ability to see detail is what the fovea at the back of the eye affords. The fovea is an indent to the rest of the retina, because there are fewer retinal cells. There are also fewer rods in the fovea, and more cones there than in the rest of the retina (mostly), to help us see more intense color. The absence of retinal cells helps us to see a more clear picture of details.
    
    How did natural selection determine to make that fovea, and where to put it?

    replyreport
    1. 88

       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       If no one knows environmental conditions when it occurred, or exactly what mutation started it, or what advantage it might have given at the time to that specific animal in that specific ecological niche...
       
       If all are ignorant of those facts, is that ignorance evidence of ID?

       replyreport
       1. 80

          SamboRamboposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          No, but it seems you need more time than a few million years to get it to the point it is at now, especially when there didn't seem to exist a plausible corrective mechanism to help it evolve. I know "it seems" is part of a rule that Richard Dawkins says not to break, but he, himself broke it in "Blind Watchmaker," so I think my use of it isn't so far out of reason.

          replyreport
          1. 88

             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             I think you need to pay more attention to the rule.  Ignorance of one thing is never, ever evidence of another - that you don't understand how evolution caused it to happen does not have anything at all to say about ID. 
             
             When you can show conclusively that it could NOT evolve, then you might have some evidence for ID, but until then, "it seems" just doesn't cut it.  And perhaps the biggest reason it doesn't is that "it seems" is just another term meaning "I don't know".

             replyreport
             1. 80

                SamboRamboposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I figured I'd lose this argument. Your logic is very sound.
                
                Maybe some day I'll take on the herculean task of doing a computer simulation of the development of our eyeball, using twenty best scenarios, and see how long it takes. If I do that, I'll let you know of the findings.

                replyreport
                1. 88

                   wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                   Maybe, but I actually doubt it.  I've looked and looked at "proofs" that obiogenesis (origination of life from natural chemical actions) cannot happen.  Not unlikely - impossible.
                   
                   And not a one worries about probability of chemical reactions - they just say it is impossible.  Not a one knows what conditions were, chemically or physically - they just say it could not happen.  Nobody does a mathematical analysis of probabilities because they don't have any numbers to plug into their formulas - they just say it can't happen.
                   
                   That's a good part of the problem - we don't know what conditions were.  Not average conditions around the world but specific, very localized conditions.  Whether it is the chemical makeup of that little pond over there (along with energy being input into the pond, from strength to wavelength to physical impacts) or the biological details of that creature swimming over there.
                   
                   So I doubt you can make that computer simulation.  You have to know too much that is unknown and will forever remain unknown (until we invent a time machine and watch it happen!)

                   replyreport
                   1. 80

                      SamboRamboposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                      I guess that was "ignorantly arrogant" of me to think I could do that, huh?

                      replyreport
                      1. 88

                         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                         Didn't say that, or intend it.  I think it is something that needs to be worked on.  But I also think that while a computer simulation might show ("prove") that evolution could produce an eye (or life or whatever) it is highly unlikely that it could ever prove it did or that it could not.  And again, a part of the reason is that the "could" includes an "if" - IF the conditions were such and such then it is possible.

                         replyreport
                         1. 80

                            SamboRamboposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                            I've read of many NDE's, one in particular from my sister. My grandfather had an OBE in which he visited his dying father. His story and those of the people around his father related the same details.These make me think that there's an afterlife. Perhaps after we die, if there IS an afterlife, we will know for sure how it all came to be. But then . . . . we won't be able to pass that knowledge back to our survivors. [Groan!]

                            replyreport
14. 74

    Oztinatoposted 7 years ago

    Many very recent scientific theories are now grudgingly accepting intelligent design as a legitimate possibility.
    Of course they talk about aliens constructing our universe etc. The truth is if it's not aliens there is only one possibility left in the intelligent design debate: God.

    replyreport
    1. 88

       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Is God not an alien?  Any sentient, non human species would seem to be...unless you wish to include other earth animals as being sentient and intelligent.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Error..right...Gods an alien.
          This means you believe in God. Usually when people get caught out like that they say they were "joking" (translation "making a fool of themselves").

          replyreport
          1. 88

             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Agreeing that any sentient being not from earth is an alien means agreement that an omnipotent, omniscient ET from another universe created this one just for humanity because it loves us and desires our worship? 
             
             I don't quite see it that way...I would have said that anyone coming with such a fantastic association is desperately grasping at anything they can touch to maintain a belief that is quickly fading.

             replyreport
15. 74

    Oztinatoposted 7 years ago

    The whole point is that intelligent design is now suddenly a respectable theory. Only 12 months ago atheists were saying it was a crackpot idea peddled by stupid believers.
    The finer details of the theory are secondary to the actual point.
    Obsfucating is NOT an art it is a petty vice. Stop it before you go blind.
    "May the Force Be With You" is the same as May God Be With You.

    replyreport
    1. 88

       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       ID is a perfectly respectable belief.  A respectable hypothesis.
       
       But not a theory - not in any but the layman sense that a theory is anything we can dream up.  In the scientific sense, ID hasn't taken the first step towards becoming an acceptable theory and it is doubtful that it ever will as it cannot be peer reviewed and tested.

       replyreport
       1. 74

          Oztinatoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Physical death could be a way to test the theory.
          Follow the light wilderness.

          replyreport
          1. 88

             wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

             Test, yes.  That peer review, however, might be a little tough when dead. 
             
             I'll keep life, thanks.  That "light" is far more likely to be an endless tunnel of dark and not very appealing.

             replyreport
16. 74

    Oztinatoposted 7 years ago

    Wilderness
    Here's an unpopular JC quote:
    "Let the dead bury the dead".
    In other words deadness can occur while someone looks alive. Scrooge for example was dead while alive until he was transformed to be spiritually alive.

    replyreport
    1. 88

       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Are you equating "dead" with attitudes or lifestyles you don't approve of?  Ones, perhaps, that go against your own morality code?
       
       Scrooge loved money, and people were naught but a means to get money.  Yes, the tale had him "correcting" to a loving, kindly man, but that doesn't have much to do with what he was, although it does make the tale a LOT more palatable.

       replyreport
17. 74

    Oztinatoposted 7 years ago

    No of course not.
    Stop obsfucating! It's a really bad habit.
    To be spiritually dead is to lack compassion. Without it a person is dead.
    Now go and get ready for Xmas dinner and gifts and holiday. Humbug you say??

    replyreport
    1. 88

       wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       To be spiritually dead is to lack understanding, mostly of human nature and of people.  Compassion certainly has its place, but understanding must come first.  Understanding and acceptance - tolerance if you will.
       
       Almost ready.  Some pre-cooking tomorrow, some clean up and we're ready!  No humbug from me - this is my favorite time of the year.  I'm not Scrooge, but Fred.
       
       If we don't meet again before Xmas, I expect you and yours to have a wonderful day.  I sure intend to, with a houseful of family.

       replyreport