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.”168Charles 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.
Apr 4, 2005Speaking 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……
Apr 4, 2005“To imagine that the human eye is the best one is without basis in fact.” Mike, read what I wrote please. I never said you said that the human eye was the best one, I didn’t use quotes around it. I didn’t even imply you said it. I’m simply making a point: there are many kinds of eyes, and human eyes aren’t even the best example. And the fact that eyes exist of varying levels of complexity is not an argument you made…it’s an argument *I* made. I never said you made it. Both pieces of evidence simply demonstrate how eyes of varying complexity (from less well developed, to more well developed) could have evolved.
Once again, as in other debates, you make assumptions and read into my posts without really reading them. I admit that my writing style is a bit academic at times, but I think you find it easy to misinterpret me simply because you have no interest in hearing what I am saying (Notice I said, hearing, not agreeing. I have never expected you to agree with me. Sadly, to you, that appears to mean you don’t actually have to listen to me either…)
You use quotation marks so freely, placing them around phrases and words I’ve never said that I think you’ve forgotten their utility. If I quote something you’ve said, I’ll put quotes around it. Otherwise, I’m not saying, nor implying you’ve said anything. Trust me, you’ve already misquoted me so many times, I’ve learned to be careful.
As I have stated, if by “evolutionist” you mean someone who believes in evolution, then I am most certainly not an evolutionist, any more than I am an “atomist.” Both evolution and atomism, for example, are good theories that explain the natural world, but I, by no means, “believe” in them. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord…
This is the (or one) problem with Creationists: they simply do not understand the meaning of the word “believe” and thus do not take it as seriously as they ought to. They “believe” in Creationism (a human interpretation of the Bible) when they should simply “believe” in Scripture. Thus they think that scientists “believe” in science. Creationists cannot separate “belief” from “theory” thus they assume that because they cannot make such an important distinction, no one else can either. It really is an insidious form of egoism.
Apr 4, 2005What 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
Apr 4, 2005Well, it should *not* be taught as a “mere theory” by which I think you mean “hypothesis.” The theory of evolution is one of the great organizing principles behind our studies of zoology, comparative anatomy, embriology, etc. You may not agree with it, but it has certainly futhered biological inquiry…
Mike, here’s where you’re wrong, I’m not confusing science with evolution. I’m a scientist (I’m sure that will be one more strike against me, in your book…) I have a BS in Chemistry, an MS in Macromolecular Science in Engineering and I’m working on a PhD in Chemistry. Really, I do know something about science. And, I know something about teaching science as I’ve got an MA in Teaching, and I used to teach high school (A gay guy teaching High School…that must really have you quaking! LOL)
Evolution is a theory. “Theory” as I am using the word: (Websters) “a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.” In other words, a theory is a hyothesis that has been supported by evidence. A theory can direct our scientific inquiry, and organize our thoughts about a particular topic. Notice (before you misread or misquote me) I did not say a theory was “proven.” Scientific theories can never be proven true, however, they can be proven false. And in fact, the test of whether or not an idea qualifies as a scientific theory is that it must be able to be disproven. Scientific theories change all the time, and in fact it is this constant improvement in our understanding that drives scientific research. For example, our understanding of atoms has evolved from thinking of them as hard little spheres all the way to quantum mechanics. Scientific theories change. Thus one does not “believe” in scientific theories unless one is completely unknowledgeable about the scientific enterprise.
I “believe” in things that are unchangeable. I believe in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ… I don’t believe in evolution, and no one should. Nor do I believe in those theories known as “Creationism” and no one should.
I’ve been to lots of classrooms, read both sets of national science benchmarks for high school, read the Michigan Standards, and no where did I ever see evolution ever mentioned as anything but a theory. Most teachers I know are petrified to even mention evolution for fear that they’ll be fired. Which is, I am sure, precisely what Creationists want.
Creationism as a “theory”, rests on an assumption that God created the world, which is not disprovable … thus not science. That’s my beef with Creationists. They take scientific theory and mischaracterize it as scientific truth. Then they attempt to create this theory called “Creationism” and try to convince people that theory is the truth.
Why is this dangerous? It leads people to believe that science is about seeking truth, when in fact it is about seeking knowledge. It leads people to believe that science seeks certainty, when the best it can give us is probability. Because it leads people to place more trust in science than it deserves, oddly enough exactly the opposite of what Creationists intend. Creationists want people to believe in Creationism. Scientists expect people to doubt science.
Then Creationists turn their pet “theory” into an article of faith, which if you don’t believe, you’re only claiming to be a Christian.
As for your snide dig about Greek, however you know very well that I believe an understanding of the Greek Testement requires an understanding of Greek. Once more you mischaracterize what I’ve said, and this time you take what I’ve said in a private email to you in an attempt to portray me as someone I am not.
Apr 4, 2005I have to say that I find it very funny that you’re debating this with me when I’ve clearly stated that I do not believe in evolution, nor do I think anyone should believe in evolution. That’s a statement I would think you could agree with…
But I’m not sure you’re interested in understanding what I write. I guess it’s easier to debate a caricature of what I’ve said than what I’ve actually written.
Apr 4, 2005Yes, 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.
Sorry, comments are closed.
11:27 am
Ah, the old “Creationist and the Human Eye” argument. An oldie but a goodie, to be sure. I’m surprised you didn’t trot out the “God placed the fossils in the ground to fool the scientists” argument, I find that one much more entertaining…
The human eye is indeed remarkable. It contains an area of light sensitive cells at the back, a lens at the front, membranes for protection (eyelids), etc.
Other eyes in the animal kingdom are even more accurate, able to see far greater distances, able see under much darker conditions, able see ranges of the EM spectrum that we cannot see (into the IR, or UV). Single eyes, compound eyes, eyes on stalks… To imagine that the human eye is the best one is without basis in fact.
And, there exist in the natural world, “eyes” that are simply patches of photosensitive cells, eyes without lenses, eyes without eyelids, etc.
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.
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. However, in the future, this explanation will change, just as it has already changed from the time it was proposed. This is the nature of scientific theories. This is why such theories cannot be seen as articles of faith, the way Creationists would like us to believe. The Creationist technique is to make evil-ution into a straw man, then knock it down. Easy to do, of course, but disingenuous. Unfortunately, Creationists never portray anything but a crude caricature of evil-ution…
They want us to believe that a 6 day Creation is an article of faith — that if we don’t believe in such a thing, we’re doomed to hell. Alas. If only they would accept the Good News, that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.