Darwinists, what's the argument against the creationist eye argument?

The argument I usually hear is "what use is half an eye?" Of course, it brings to mind images of 50% of an eye, split halfway down the middle (which would, of course, be useless).

When you actually look at the makeup of the eye, it becomes easier to see how the individual parts can function on their own. Start with a simple eyespot - a photoreceptive outgrowth of the nervous system. It doesn't even have to be complicated or have dedicated parts of the brain to interpret the information (just simple reactions, like "towards light" and "away from shadow").

Then you take that photoreceptor, and start building up tissue around it in a cup shape. That cup would further protect the eyespot and allow more light to be funneled in, permitting further retinal development (and parallel brain development). If you continue this over many steps, you end up with a nearly-enclosed eye.

This nearly-enclosed eye would be a huge advantage. It would be protected and it could be aimed around (the retina, at this point, would be developed enough to form crude images). It would allow for a huge jump in eye development - a lens. The lens itself wouldn't be all that important at this point. All that is needed is a small hole, and the laws of optics would allow a clear, focused image (on the same principles as a pinhole camera) - the modern nautilus still uses this method.

From here, the retina and brain would develop even further to take full advantage of the image clarity. Then, it would simply be a matter of refining the whole setup: clear connective tissue to form a cornea to protect the eye, a modified cornea to serve as a lens, muscles to move that lens and allow for focusing.

So far, not one single example of irreducible complexity has been found. Many have been proposed, but each one has been shown to be reducible upon further study. The only way the argument holds up is for one to ignore the reliable, clear, and concise evidence.

Creationists claim that the eye is so complex, it could never have evolved from something so simple as a few light-sensitive cells. Those that know big words say that, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, nothing can go from "simple" to "complex" without intelligent design of some sort, since the Second Law states that, over time, entropy increases; that is, things break down from complex to simple.

The response is that, while the Second Law of Thermodynamics is true, it is true only in CLOSED SYSTEMS, which living things are not. As long as energy can enter a system, it is not a closed system, and the Second Law does not hold; entropy CAN decrease in an open system.

If the eye were designed as some Godly creation, why was it designed to develop myopia, presbyopia, or hyperopia? Why was it designed a retina that could be detached from the choroid beneath it? Why was it designed to degenerate as we got older?

The creationists use the idea of irreducible complexity to make the argument that certain biological features could not have evolved. However, every example they use to support intelligent design eventually turns out to have been built naturally of parts that may have had different purposes.

The scientific evidence is that vision has evolved independently multiple times using different mechanisms to take advantage of light. The fundamental point is that the eye did not start de novo, but it evolved from parts that served different purposes. Furthermore, a close study of the embryology of the eye shows that the process is quite natural and no intelligent design is needed.

Another point is that vision has its imperfections. I wear glasses to correct the imperfect geometry of my eyes. If there were intelligent design needed for the eye, what untalented designer created problems with the eyes. An intelligent design of the eye would not have allowed for near or far sighted vision, astigmatism, retinal detachments, congenital blindness, color blindness, and all of the other problems with the eye.

It would serve the creationists better if they would provide the physical evidence for the existence of a creator first. Let's call him Duane to distinguish him from any particular deity. Once the physical existence of Duane is established, then one could ask if there is overwhelming physical evidence that Duane designed the eye. However, to conclude from the anatomy of the eye that Duane exists is a massive stretch of the imagination.

i assume i does not say my argument that follows is the terrific argument, besides the undeniable fact that it is the terrific i've got ever got here upon (to boot the obtrusive "The Bible suggested it handed off in a 6 day introduction."). instead, this argument tries to apply a sequence of logical if-then statements. on an identical time as this argument does not probably be useful against atheists, that's useful against previous earth-introduction (The question is to no longer argue against atheism besides). If evolution (as defined under) introduced approximately the life-types we've right now, then there could have been death earlier Adam and Eve. If there become death earlier Adam and Eve, then their sin (nor any of humanities' sins) might have brought about death, because it existed ahead of sin. If death isn't brought about by utilising sin, then Jesus Christ's sacrifice can not do away with death. If Christ did no longer come to do away with death, then Christianity falls aside, because of the fact there may be no eternal life. Evolution-the changing of life-types over the years. Macroevolution (as used above)-the changing of life-types over tens of millions of years. in this version, all life in the international descends from a single ancestor. it fairly is the theory supported by utilising textbooks. Microevolution-the changing of life-types over a short quantity of time. in this version, the alterations of life-types does not carry any species into belonging to a species of a distinctive style, yet purely distinctive adjustments of an identical style. it fairly is the info utilized in textbooks, which does no longer immediately help macroevolution. i'm a Christian youthful earth Creationist-6,000 years (supply or take some hundred).

I can't speak necessarily to Dawkins' answer, but I've heard the response for instance that the eye is a perfectly explainable evolutionary product all the way up from light-attracting chemicals in plants (e.g. chlorophyll).

Moreover, the creationist suggestion that eyes are proof of the divine loses some steam when you consider the enormous number of people who require glasses to see properly. An organ whose supposed perfection is such that its very existence demands the existence of an all-knowing creator surely does not square with the reality of poor vision we all know.

The "eye is too complex" argument got started from a misquote from Origin of Species. Darwin, playing devil's advocate, said that it is hard to imagine how something so complex as the human eye could evolve, but then went on to explain how it makes perfect sense. This quote was, as far as I can tell, first misquoted by Scott Huse in his book "The Collapse of Evolution".

"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 possible degree."

This is where creationists like Scott Huse usually end quote. However, the rest of the quote is as follows:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."

The vast majority of the creationist arguments against evolution is based on flat out deception.

omg just accept that there could be god cos for some things, thats the only explanation. how the f... could something as complex asthe eye be a coincidence that just happens to be controlled and used perfectly by an organisms brain. oh and i suppose its just coincidence that our movements are controlled by what our eyes sea which enables a species to survive!!! I do accept that evolution may have occurred to produce the eye but i certainly dont believe that its all coincidence!! By the way Hperbyopia myopia and presbyopia are just fancy words fo short sight and long sight and old age.you try making suhin better