I will too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Richard Dawkin's view that the human eye was designed by an idiot really science ?
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- evolution
Dawkins' point is that if God had designed the eye you'd expect a good design, but the actual anatomy has design flaws that even a first year engineering student wouldn't make. This is not a matter for dispute. The anatomy of the eye has been known for a long time and you can review it in any anatomy textbook.
The actual ocular anatomy is consistent with evolution. Evolution can't completely overhaul a design, but has to work with whatever anatomy already exists.
The actual ocular anatomy is consistent with evolution. Evolution can't completely overhaul a design, but has to work with whatever anatomy already exists.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Think about it this way, no competent designer would have designed the mammalian eye the way it is. Just how incompetent a designer you'd have to be, idiotic, moronic, just plain stupid, etc., is open to anyone's opinion. If you believe in an intelligent designer, the details of the eye (and all manner of other structures) should give you serious pause.
Last edited:
New term: "Titivations"
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's not a new term. According to the OED, the first use they have on record of the word "titivation" was in 1805.
True, but it was discovered after the theory of evolution.
It's just poetic hyperbole, Maponos. You're being overly literal. He's saying the 'designer' appears neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
Maponos
Welcome to the Opera
As my first sentence implies, I'm quite aware of what he's speaking of.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
It is good for not bumping into stuff. I wonder why the fact that life forms die is not regarded as idiotic more often -rather than focusing on systems which serve their purpose rather well.
A rabbit eats its own poop -doesn't mind the taste -extracts nutrients more efficiently.
vs.
A rabbit hops around -maybe mates -and then dies. Why, rabbit? Why? What's it all for, rabbit?
A perfect eye would perceive everything -or what? No need for a microscope here -I'll just focus my eye a bit more. Probe to Mars? Why? I can see it just fine!
A rabbit eats its own poop -doesn't mind the taste -extracts nutrients more efficiently.
vs.
A rabbit hops around -maybe mates -and then dies. Why, rabbit? Why? What's it all for, rabbit?
A perfect eye would perceive everything -or what? No need for a microscope here -I'll just focus my eye a bit more. Probe to Mars? Why? I can see it just fine!
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Saint Dawkins is incapable of uttering anything but profound truth, so there.
1) There is no "The Scientific Method". This nonsense is a pedagogical distortion masquerading as a simplification. In reality, scientists use a variety of methods typically developed to be specific to their respective fields. More importantly, the lie taught to non-scientists that "The Scientific Method" consists of some prescribed recipe in which some algorithmic procedures transform hypotheses into theories (i.e., The Scientific Method is, or is some variant of, the following: 1) Develop some hypotheses, 2) Try to falsify this hypothesis, 3) If experiments can't falsify said hypothesis but rather confirm it, it becomes theory). In reality, theory is used to derive hypotheses, the experiments used to test them, and to interpret the results of experiments.
2) Most scientists are taught, and most of the rest learn, that scientific practices are subject to all sorts of biases, and scientific practice far from impartial or dispassionate.
3) Dawkin's views don't qualify as scientific (or, rather, do not qualify as contributions to scientific literature or to the body of scientific knowledge) but are rather popular texts for non-scientists.
4) Scientific methods consist of the application of logic to systematic empirical investigations as structured by earlier application and confirmation of the same. Scientific inquiry is, however, a human endeavor. It is therefore subject to bias, passions, partiality, etc. However, thanks to its basis in the application of logic to empirical findings, it is not subject to the same epistemological problems which plague other knowledge frameworks such as religious. Also, its successes can often be evaluated by looking at the ways in which it has produced that which we now take for granted: discussions on this forum are made possible because of a host of scientific successes, none of which were impartial or dispassionate or proved, yet which have allowed various devices to access an incredibly complicated network which relies upon classical electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, network theory, computer science, information theory, cognitive science, etc.
In short, who cares what a science popularizer like Dawkins says about the human eye in some popular text? Popular texts aren't even contributions to scientific literature, let alone views that should be considered in terms of a mythical pedagogical distortion of scientific practice to be evaluated as "science" in terms of these distortions.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Well, for starters and for conclusions (untracking after posting), I'm quite familiar with Dawkins and I'm certain he never stated "the human eye was designed by an idiot"; but would have otherwise said more along the lines of, "if the human eye was designed, that designer was an idiot".
Thus, this thread begins (and, for me, concludes) on false pretenses and a misrepresentation of another person's words.
G'day.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Agree, and you're absolutely right. Here's the quote:
Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (p. 354). Free Press. Kindle Edition.[/QUOTE]
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
The process of random evolution is much harder than a designer since every slight change must be propelled by an advantage as it stumbles along chaotically
Ironically RIchard Dawkins himself is not a designer... or he might have more caution in what he says
Ironically RIchard Dawkins himself is not a designer... or he might have more caution in what he says
McBell
Unbound
What is your excuse?
How can it be designed by an idiot if those of human beings (at least) have prints (imprints?!?!) normally unique to every single one?
Anyway, it maybe be is science, but not necessarily as a view or a true fact. It would be made "thru" science, not the true notion of science itself. Just being found thru science does not mean it is true.
Anyway, it maybe be is science, but not necessarily as a view or a true fact. It would be made "thru" science, not the true notion of science itself. Just being found thru science does not mean it is true.
Define "random evolution" and "slight change." Are you talking about random mutation or random environmental change as drivers of evolution? These may be drivers, but the processes of evolution themselves are not random and do not stumble along.
Most slight gene changes, on the other hand, are propelled by chance, they're random. Most slight have no obvious effect, either positive or negatve.
Most slight morphological changes, in the absence of an environmental driver, have little or no effect on populations either.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Actually, more and more computer games use generated environments and even generated "aliens", simply because it's easier (in the big picture and long run) to spend the time figure out a formula that will produce many things by itself.
Like the game that's coming out soon, No Man's Sky, it will have 1.8×10^19 planets (using a pseudo-random number generator algorithm). That's probably more planets than there's in our whole universe. The current estimate of stars in our universe is somewhere around 10^16, so this game can produce a thousand times more planets (through algorithms, rather than single individually designed) than stars. That shows the power of algorithms over hands-on single piece-meal designing. There's been many tools around for years to produce vegetation, buildings, and such for games and even movies. These tools generate things through randomizations and selections, kind'a like how evolution works. Random production with a selective process.
So what you're suggesting is that God isn't smart enough to do this, but we are.