I’ve heard the anti-creationists whine so often about how we’re so “poorly designed,” that it has inspired not one, but two CrEvo rants. The first rant, where I dealt with the argument from a general point of view was just to show the incredibly arrogant falacy of such claims:
CrEvo Rant #67: Poor Design? (Lessons from the robots, Part 1)
The second rant was also my most recent, spurned by the most common “poor design” argument of all, the ridiculous claim that the human eye was “poorly designed.”
CrEvo Rant #50: The eye and the snowflake
Well now looky here! After years of anti-creationist mantra about how the human eye is a poor design (and the creationary community pointing out for many years why the human eye is designed the way it is), the anti-creationists now turn around and give credit to the god of evolution for the incredible design of the eye!
Comments from the famous theistic evolutionist, Dr. Kenneth Miller at the end are especially noteworthy:
” However, Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.”
C’mon Miller! Get with the times and do some research, and catch up on the facts the creationary camp has been pointing out for years! The eye was built with an “inverted retina” for a reason:
Of course, this is typical behaviour of the anti-creationist camp – evolution has hindered medical research. For many, many years, if a particular organ seemed to have no function, it was immediately labeled as a “vestigial organ” – a useless leftover from our evolutionary history. The Creationary camp of course, would look at it, assuming the human body was designed they would assume therefore that this organ must have a purupose, and went searching for the purpose. This has led to the advancement of discovery and science, whereas evolution has retarded science and medical research. Once again, we see this hindrance of scientific research rearing its ugly head. Creationists once again lead the way in discovery because we sought an answer, instead of assuming there wasn’t one, and it has to do with our world view. Your world view effects everything you do, including your science.
“CrEvo News Bites” are short commentaries from Ian Juby on current events relating to creation and evolution. You can subscribe by visiting his blog at: https://ianjuby.org/newsletter. He has many informative hours of video available for free viewing on line, including his exhaustive, 12-hour “Complete Creation” video series – a veritable video encyclopedia. http://completecreation.orghttp://youtube.com/wazooloo
what if we will see a self replicating robot ( lets say even with dna)on a far planet? do we need to conclude design or a natural process in this case? remember that according to evolution if its made from organic components and have a self replicating system we need to conclude a natural process. but we know that even a self replicating robot is evidence for design
check also this site: https://answersingenesis.org/answers/