7
15 votes
Apr 5, 2015

Theory is just a theory. It is not a law. Theory of evolution is a myth. Certain features of the world and of living things can be explained by the existence of the Designer. The world is too complex to be just an accident. An eye can't be formed over time - it's too complex. There are too many interconnected parts that would not work without the other. They wouldn't work if even one piece was missing. How does an organism that has no eyes grows eyes when it cannot even know there is anything to see?

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
11 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

You're right - many things (in fact all) could be explained by the existence of an all-powerful designer and creator of the universe. However, all things could equally well be explained by physical properties of what we can observe and know exists. Occam's Razor says that the thing which is simplest is most likely to be true, because it's the easiest to have true. It's easiest for any mechanism acting on the universe to exist and be observable in the universe, because if it wasn't we would have to postulate things like other realities, special cases where things are unobservable, and many other things. Evolution has recently been very conclusively demonstrated in an experiment with the E. Coli bacteria, where several million generations were grown and frozen over several years then compared to each other. A whole new species broke off, losing the original (and very useful) ability to consume glucose (sugar) and gaining the ability, which was useful in the environment these many generations found themselves in, to eat a derivative of citric acid.

Just in case you aren't sure how evolution works, please allow me to explain it. Basically, the DNA in cells can get screwed up in little ways when it's copied before the cell splits. Usually this doesn't change much but sometimes it changes some characteristic in the cell. This can be sped up in sexually reproducing species because the DNA of the parents also mixes together to make the DNA of the child. (This is simplified, but it's the basic mechanism.) When a mutation happens during the cell reproduction phase, it can result in some physical change in the offspring. Evolution is the tendency of some of these mutations being good for the survival of the offspring. If a meat eater by pure chance is born with sharper teeth, it will be able to take down its prey faster and more effectively, which lets it survive better. This means that it is more likely to live a long time and have many children, which will mostly have these same sharper teeth. Over a long period of time, these sharper teeth could become more common than the old dull teeth that this species had. This is how genetics works.

As for eyes, there is absolutely an evolutionary explanation for that. Imagine that there is a very simple organism, living in the sea with not much around it but others of the same species and some food, which grows in the light. This organism has no eyes or seeing mechanism, and wanders blindly until it finds food. When it reproduces, the child has, by chance, a small mutation which gives it a light-sensitive patch of skin. Nothing knew about light or seeing, it is by pure chance that this happened. The child will learn as it grows that food can be found easiest when the light-sensitive patch is sensing light. It knows to go where the light is, and so gets more food and has more children than others of that species. Maybe one of those children has a light-patch which is slightly concave (bowl shaped), which means that light from one side will not activate the whole patch, only one side. This one can tell which direction the light is coming from (to a degree) and not only whether or not it is currently in the light. Over many many generations, the light-patch might become more and more concave, allowing each generation to better distinguish which direction to go to find more food. Each time, it is by pure chance but it happens to be an advantage to that creature. There are many more children who's mutations didn't help it at all, or even made it harder to survive. Because these didn't help the species, they usually (not always) die out within a few generations. Maybe eventually some descendant of that ancient first creature happens to (again by chance) have a mutation which lets it turn this light-patch slightly, or it has a focusing lens in front of it, which lets it see more clearly. Over many many generations this light-patch becomes a retina, the concavity becomes the eyeball. The ability to turn the eye develops with muscles appearing around it, and the lens becomes more refined and accurate. Now we have an eye!

And remember - this isn't only happening with eyes. In this one species, multiple mutations happen all over all the time. Some help survival, and tend to be preserved. Some make it harder to survive, and those children die quickly, not spreading their genes. Maybe at the same time this species is growing a limb which can be waved to push itself around in the water instead of just drifting. Every child is different from its parents but based on them, and evolution is the tendency for new things which are an advantage to survive better and have children which are based on that advantage and may have another mutation which makes it even better.

I hope this helps you understand what evolution is and how it works!

EDIT: Also, in science a theory means that "We had this idea, so we tested it and it looks like it works. We gave it to our friends and said 'we think this, can you see if there's any way we could be wrong?' and they couldn't. They did the same, and so far no one has been able to find any way it's wrong, with all of us trying our best to find anything wrong with it." In science, you only know you're right when you try your hardest to prove yourself wrong and fail.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Designer? Why singular? To really consider intelligent design a viable alternative theory to evolution, you need to have some observations as to who are these designers, where are they from, and how did they do it? You would also have to explain how they were doing it over a couple of billion years. Note, it has to cover all life, animal and plant.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Exactly. That's why I don't think that life was artificially created or designed by anything, singular or plural.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

If you agree, why is there a "however"? Something such as, as Thorston said, an eye can not evolve because of it's complexity! It can adapt! That's two different things! I really want to be there when people try to explain to God how they evolved from a primordial cesspool or apes! All of life is by design, which means there has to be a designer!

subscribe
load further replies (2)
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Several points
1) Being a member-in-good-standing of the Church of England, Darwin agonized over his findings and their religious implications. And even before Darwin, wasn't Gallileo excommunicated for daring to publish his findings that the earth is not the center of the universe. Now THAT was heresy.

2) Did-you-know there is a species of jelly fish in Australia that has 4 functioning eyes and [obviously] no brain or central nervous system.

3) Having survived 12 years of Catholic School, we were taught that Yes God created all this stuff; who says he didn't use evolution to do it, or even that God retired on the 8th day instead of continuing on finetuning Creation?

4) With discovery of genetics and DNA molecule the important holes in Darwin's theory are now solved. All that remains scientifically to move evolution from a "theory" to a "law" is reproducing it in the laboratory. simple, is not easy or it would be done.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-3
main reply
3 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

Evolution is part of our designer, We were created twice. we were created as monkeys or chimps, then into homo-sapiens. by our designer. So I agree with everybody. More or less.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

We weren't "created" as monkeys or chimps. Humans, like any other species, evolved from simple unicellular organisms. It took hundreds of millions of years, or even billions of years. You can't even imagine such space of time.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

Yes I can. I just used monkeys and chimps as an example of evolution. The point I was trying to make was that we were designed or created as homo-sapiens after this period ,From what species I don't know.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

What evidence do you base this on? The observed evidence that I know about suggests that some ancient ape split into several groups which became humans and modern apes eventually. How do you know (what observable and measurable element of the world around us suggests) that some artificial force change humans into what they are?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-2
2 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

Where do you find Any Part of my reply that refers to artificial forces? Now, if you can tell me exactly who observed this evidence that you know of, it would be news to me. As far as an ancient ape splitting into several species, not groups, that was my original question. Which species? How were we designed or created from this?

subscribe
load further replies (7)
::unhide-discussion::
-1
main reply
1 vote,
Apr 5, 2015

You offer no facts or refuting evidence. The theory of evolution is a sound theory that has been tested and retested through the ages, and best of all it does not presuppose that there is no designer behind its ingenuity. Come back when you have evidence refuting the theory of evolution, and I will spend my life championing the cause of removing it from human consciousness.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 5, 2015

Everything can be explained by a designer. But it can also be explained without a designer.

Everything else you say is simply incorrect. The world is not too complex to be an accident. The claim that the eye can't form over time is just ignorant, we even know quite well how it developed. Your last question assumes that the ORGANISM grows the eye because he WANTED to.

If that was true, I think a lot of people would have three arms and eyes in the back of their head.

(ps, when you say "Just a theory" the word you are looking for is "just a hypothesis").

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: