Is Richard Dawkin's view that the human eye was designed by an idiot really science ?

[Valjean]

Eagles and hawks eyes are way better than human eyes. Why did God design some eyes so much better than other eyes?

Birds of prey sacrifice good color vision and near-vision clarity for sharp, telescopic vision.
Engineering is all about trade-offs.

 

[Demonslayer]

Engineering is all about trade-offs.

Not if you're all powerful and can do anything you want. You're saying God couldn't make an eye that sees as well as the eagle does, only in sharp color?

 

[Valjean]

I am coming to this discussion late but I have 2 cents on me. I believe in evolution guided by beings that are far beyond us in their type of intelligence but not Omni-everything either. I think Dawkins wants to create this false dichotomy that evolution is either the work of unthinking natural forces or the omniscient God and then ask: Which is it? I see it occurring in a third method; by beings that learn and experiment. Hence the current eye was not designed from scratch as Dawkins implies the God theory has it.

OK, first, there is no need to postulate any magical intercession. Why do you think the ordinary mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to produce an eye -- or any other biological structure?
Second, divine guidance must needs involve magical alteration of the laws of Nature -- chemistry, physics, &c. It means God reaches down to suddenly alter the laws of gravity, motion, conservation, inverse square, &c. Science has never discovered any such intermittent aberrations.
So there is neither need for nor evidence of magic. Why even propose it?

Yeah eagles can see better, but they cannot smell or taste things. All their brain power is used up in managing the vision. You will be able to see quite well the poisoned food that you eat as it kills you.

Turkey vultures, though, have an extraordinary sense of smell.
Exclusively sight predators just don't need to smell a rabbit a Km away, as long as he can see it.
Unneeded complexity and energy wasted on unneeded systems is bad engineering.

 

[Valjean]

Not if you're all powerful and can do anything you want. You're saying God couldn't make an eye that sees as well as the eagle does, only in sharp color?

LOL -- Well, if you're going to bring God (magic) into it, anything's possible: color vision extended into the infrared (like pit vipers) and ultraviolet (like insects), telescopic vision like an eagle plus near visual clarity sufficient to knap an arrowhead or read this post.

 

[George-ananda]

OK, first, there is no need to postulate any magical intercession.

The reason is because I think it exists (the fostering by nature beings/spirits). My reasons for this belief are not necessity, but the teachings and experiences of those who I believe have experienced the universe beyond our physical five senses and physical instruments. And I wouldn't call it 'magical' but instead 'natural'. If you are doing physical science where only information from the physical senses and physical instruments can be considered, then there is no need by Occam's razor is what I believe you are saying

Why do you think the ordinary mechanisms of evolution are insufficient to produce an eye -- or any other biological structure?

I never said they are insufficient but I believe it is a very long stretch to believe abiogenesis, the complexity of DNA, and physical development from a zygote came about through an incredible string of chance events. But no, I can't say some string of events is impossible.

Second, divine guidance must needs involve magical alteration of the laws of Nature -- chemistry, physics, &c. It means God reaches down to suddenly alter the laws of gravity, motion, conservation, inverse square, &c. Science has never discovered any such intermittent aberrations.
So there is neither need for nor evidence of magic. Why even propose it?

I am not saying this design and manipulation of the elements requires alteration of any physical laws. It might all look natural from a physical only perspective, but the 'why' can never be seen. Quantum mechanics shows the universe is not deterministic in any way we can comprehend.

 

[rusra02]

Why does God design things with so many defects? The human eye is the Ford Pinto of organs.

Really? Is that why scientists study the eye to learn how to make better cameras?
As to why we have so many defects, I believe the Bible gives the correct answer. "For I will declare the name of Jehovah.Tell about the greatness of our God! The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he. They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own." Adam was created perfect in mind and body, with the prospect of endless life before him. Sadly, he chose a course of rebellion and brought sin and death down on our heads. (Romans 5:12) This is the source of our defects, as I see it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sadly, he chose a course of rebellion and brought sin and death down on our heads. (Romans 5:12) This is the source of our defects, as I see it.

Then why are we punished for his actions?

 

[Demonslayer]

Really? Is that why scientists study the eye to learn how to make better cameras?

The cameras scientists have developed are far better than the human eye. How can that be?

 

[Demonslayer]

LOL -- Well, if you're going to bring God (magic) into it, anything's possible: color vision extended into the infrared (like pit vipers) and ultraviolet (like insects), telescopic vision like an eagle plus near visual clarity sufficient to knap an arrowhead or read this post.

Now we're talkin'! Valjean has designed a better eye that the All-Mighty!

 

[jeager106]

Dawkins uses his educational background to make outlandish claims to sell
his articles, books, speaking engagements, & so on.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/2007/02/debunking-the-god-delusion-part-1.aspx

 

[Valjean]

I never said they are insufficient but I believe it is a very long stretch to believe abiogenesis, the complexity of DNA, and physical development from a zygote came about through an incredible string of chance events. But no, I can't say some string of events is impossible.

I don't understand why abiogenesis is considered so irreducibly complex. You're appealing to personal incredulity.
Molecules with lifelike features are easily produced in the laboratory. DNA is not a complex polymer. Embryological development is complex, I'll admit, but the steps were coded for by easily comprehended mechanisms.

I am not saying this design and manipulation of the elements requires alteration of any physical laws. It might all look natural from a physical only perspective, but the 'why' can never be seen. Quantum mechanics shows the universe is not deterministic in any way we can comprehend.

Quantum mechanics does not apply here. We're talking about a whole different level of reality.

As to why we have so many defects, I believe the Bible gives the correct answer. "For I will declare the name of Jehovah.Tell about the greatness of our God! The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he. They are the ones who have acted corruptly. They are not his children, the defect is their own." Adam was created perfect in mind and body, with the prospect of endless life before him. Sadly, he chose a course of rebellion and brought sin and death down on our heads. (Romans 5:12) This is the source of our defects, as I see it.

That's not an answer.

Dawkins uses his educational background to make outlandish claims to sell
his articles, books, speaking engagements, & so on.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/2007/02/debunking-the-god-delusion-part-1.aspx

Dawkins uses reason, observation and commonsense.
What arethese "outlandish" claims?

 

[jeager106]

Dawkins uses reason, observation and commonsense.
What are these "outlandish" claims?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, because I said so!

I have every right to my beliefs and opinions.
Same as you.

Why Does Deepak Chopra Hate Me? | Richard Dawkins Foundation

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/

Dawkins Stumped Again | Shadow To Light

I post anti Dawkins info for hours but I'd prefer you take the task of educating
yourself.

You have every right to your opinions as we all do.

 

[Valjean]

Well, as they say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Some opinions are better supported than others. Some are reasonable, others not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Would a view that 'the human eye was designed by an idiot' be more of a heart view than an impartial and dispassionate conclusion of the scientific method ?

Of course octopus have photo receptors facing out but they won't get burnt out by UV as they are protected by water.

What we are saying is its objectively true that we as mere simple humans have created lenses far greater than anything in the biological world. Therefore we are far smarter than god. Or god is an idiot or there is no god. Sure its complex but its made inefficiently and highly prone for mistakes. As a person who can't read the morning paper with human made correctional lenses I can vouch.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't understand why abiogenesis is considered so irreducibly complex. You're appealing to personal incredulity.
Molecules with lifelike features are easily produced in the laboratory. DNA is not a complex polymer. Embryological development is complex, I'll admit, but the steps were coded for by easily comprehended mechanisms.

It was not I who said anything about 'irreducible complexity'. I think you are trying to downplay the mindboggling complexity and unlikeliness, but I never said it was impossible by just the forces currently accepted by science. I said sources I respect provide information I take into consideration when forming my views. I take the position that physical science is not our only source of knowledge.

Quantum mechanics does not apply here. We're talking about a whole different level of reality.

Quantum Mechanics tells us the universe operates in a way we don't understand opening possibilities. Our minds understand the way macro-objects behave and want to extrapolate that to the ways tiniest particles behave so we may be thinking too simplistically, Who knows what is possible. The QM side-point was in response to your statement that some physical laws must be broken for intentional design to occur.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Would a view that 'the human eye was designed by an idiot' be more of a heart view than an impartial and dispassionate conclusion of the scientific method ?

Of course octopus have photo receptors facing out but they won't get burnt out by UV as they are protected by water.

The question about argument from design
falls under the title of metaphysics,
regardless of one's point of view on the matter.

 

[rusra02]

Then why are we punished for his actions?

If Jehovah had executed Adam immediately after his rebellion, none of us would have existed. So, rather than being punished, the fact we live at all is an undeserved kindness from God, IMO. The Bible explains; "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:18-21) I believe it was necessary for Jehovah to take the actions he has taken, in order to undo the harm Satan and Adam caused by their rebellion. These actions would take time. It was also necessary for God to demonstrate the futility of life lived apart from obedience to him. Mankind's tragic history is strong testimony that man cannot successfully rule themselves. Again, this has taken time. Meanwhile, Jehovah has provided hope that we "will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom [from sin and death] of the children of God."

 

[rusra02]

The cameras scientists have developed are far better than the human eye. How can that be?

I know of no single camera that can match all the capabilities of the human eye. Do you?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I know of no single camera that can match all the capabilities of the human eye. Do you?

Clearly you've never watched HD TV before.

 

[viole]

I know of no single camera that can match all the capabilities of the human eye. Do you?

I don't know of any single human eye that matches all of the capabilities of a 100$ worth digital camera, either.

And that is probably the main reason why we spend those $100 dollars to buy it.

Ciao

- viole