We've moved to a better place...

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
http://www.relativelytinteresting.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts

Friday, June 3, 2011 ~ Have your say...

Irreducible Complexity, Intelligent Design, Evolution, and The Eye


Preface

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

With this statement, and like any good scientist, Charles Darwin provided a means by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. 
The claim from Intelligent Design advocates is that irreducibly complex systems falsify the theory of evolution and natural selection.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is, by definition, nonfunctional.
Michael Behe
The human eye is often used as an example of an irreducibly complex system.  If irreducibly complex systems are found in nature, then it follows that they must have been created, or designed, by some intelligent designer.  The concept of irreducible complexity is one of the pillars for the theory of Intelligent Design.

In this article, we will review the evolution of the eye, an explanation of its function, and then step back to review if, indeed, it is irreducibly complex, and thus, possibly created by a designer.

An introduction to the evolution of the human eye.  But first, a primer on evolution.

Evolution is the process by which groups of organisms and their descendants change over time.  These changes in populations occur through changes in traits that are passed from parent to offspring.  A trait is a characteristic of an organism that is determined by its genes.   

As organisms reproduce, they pass their traits on to their offspring; this phenomenon is called heredity.  The tendency for traits to differ slightly between individuals of a species is called genetic variation.  Genetic variation is a random occurrence – that is, traits alter without preference for the surrounding environment.  Variation of a trait or set of traits may make a group of organisms more or less likely to survive and reproduce. 

Natural selection is the process by which these traits become more or less common in a population.  Organisms with traits that make them more likely to survive and produce offspring are selected for positively.  Organisms with traits that make them less likely to survive and produce offspring are selected for negatively.  This is the Darwinian mechanism of evolution – natural selection makes different traits more or less common in a population as the members of the population reproduce.  Even a slight advantage or disadvantage of a trait may have major consequences for a population of organisms. 

By this process of evolution, nature has produced an incredible amount of diversity in life on Earth.


How might the eye have evolved?

For some time, the eye has been of interest to philosophers and scientists who sought to understand the origin of an organ as complex as the human eye.  In his work, On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote,
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree... 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... 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.”  Charles Darwin (1809–1882)
The topic of the evolution of the human eye has been studied at length, and the multiple steps between an “imperfect and simple” ancestral eye to a “perfect and complex” human eye alluded to in this often misquoted statement by Darwin has been demonstrated not only on an anatomical level, but also on a cellular and molecular level through advances in technology that have allowed researchers to investigate how vision operates in many species. 

A currently proposed model of human eye evolution proceeds as follows:  organisms that existed approximately 600 million years ago had a cluster of cells on their surface composed of light-sensing cells.  This cluster of cells is called an eyespot.  This eyespot gave these organisms an advantage in survival and reproduction over their relatives who lacked this trait.   

As these ancestors to humans produced offspring, the number of individual organisms with eyespots grew.  These eyespots can still be found on organisms today, including the group of flatworms called Planarians.  With each generation, the opportunity for some offspring to develop another advantageous trait increased.  For example, an inward folding of the photosensitive cells would make the eye sensitive to light in multiple directions, giving this population a survival advantage over organisms that lacked these inward-folding eyespots, also called “eyecups.” 

As other differences accumulated between the organisms that had eyecups and their relatives with eyespots, the closely related groups diverged.  This inward folding of the eyespot to an eyecup would represent the next stage of evolution for the vertebrate eye.  Indeed, just as eyespots are found today in flatworms, eyecups are also found in a group called the hagfishes.  Although these eyespots and eyecups provide an advantage to the organisms that have them, these sense organs are rudimentary – they do not even produce an image!  Rather, their function is proposed to be to detect shadows or provide a body clock, also called the circadian rhythm. 

By current estimates, image-forming eyes and visual systems emerged approximately sixty million years later, along with the relatively fast evolution of animal body plans that occurred during the Cambrian explosion.  As the eyecup becomes deeper and the opening narrows, the resulting structure becomes something like a pinhole camera, allowing for greater sensitivity in the direction of the light source.  Importantly, this eye is also able to produce a rudimentary image.  The nautilus is a modern organism that makes use of this type of eye.

The next step in vertebrate eye evolution involves the development of a clear fluid within an enclosed chamber.  This stage of evolution resulted in the formation of a lens and iris, with the original light detecting cells developing into a retina.  During this stage of the evolutionary process, color vision may have developed from the evolution of cone cells on the early retina.  By approximately 500 million years ago, this version of the eye would have existed in the common ancestor to vertebrates, as well as the lampreys, which have a similar eye structure today.

During the next stage in the process of vertebrate eye evolution, distinct lens and rod photoreceptors evolved.  With both rods and cones present on the retina, as well as an adjustable lens, the organisms with these eyes enjoyed both daytime and nighttime vision.  This type of eye is probably similar to the eyes of many fish that are alive today. 

Finally, because many vertebrates live on land, having an eye exposed to air posed a challenge to the ancestors of today’s land-dwelling animals.  Because air has a lower index of refraction than water, the eye has greater optical power on land than in the sea.  The eye would also have to develop a method of protection against the dry environment to which it was exposed.  To compensate for these changes, the lens developed into an elliptical shape while the eyelid evolved.



How the human eye works

Starting with the eye, the human visual system has incredible abilities in processing visual information taken from the world around it.  The eye itself is a complex structure that receives photons of visible light from the environment, using cells located in the back of the eye, called photoreceptors, to convert information from light into electrical signals.  It is estimated that the human eye can see up to ten million different colors!  Using the retina to communicate with the brain, the eye is able to accurately receive and transmit a large amount of visual information, such as the location, color, and speed of objects in the surrounding environment, all from even just a quick glance. 

The structure of the human eye

In biology, the structure of a system, like the kidneys or the heart, demonstrates how the system serves its functions.  Likewise, the structure of the eye reveals its basic functions.  The eye is a sphere of fluid surrounded by three layers of tissue, called the retina, the uveal tract, and the sclera.  The retina does not completely enclose the eye, however, and is instead located closer to the back of the eye.   

Neurons are found in the retina, which is the innermost of the three tissue layers.  The purpose of a neuron, one of the basic cell types of the nervous system, is to transmit electrical information.  The neurons found on the retina receive the image that the eye is looking at and transmits this image to the brain.   

The uveal tract is the middle layer of tissue surrounding the eye.  This layer provides nourishment to the cells of the eye, and also contains the iris, which is the muscular, colored portion of the eye that surrounds and adjusts the size of the pupil.   

The outermost layer is called the sclera, which is made of a tough, white tissue except towards the front of the eye, where the cornea is formed.  The cornea is a transparent tissue that allows rays of light to enter the eye.  The fluid inside the eye is made of two, separated fluids called the aqueous humor, which is located between the cornea and the lens, and the vitreous humor, which is located behind the lens. 

How is an image formed on the surface of the retina?

To form an image on the retina, the eye has to be able to allow light to pass through the tissues and fluid to reach the retina.  The eye must also be able to focus light onto the retina to form an accurate image.  In order to produce a focused image, the cornea and lens are able to refract light.  Although the cornea is responsible for most of the refraction, the eye contains a muscle that adjusts the shape of the lens surrounds the lens.  The adjustments to the lens due to this muscle allow the eye to focus on objects more effectively.  For example, the muscle makes the lens flatter and thinner when objects are farther away, while for closer objects the lens becomes thicker and rounder.  These changes in the shape of the lens in response to the environment are called accommodation.  As a human ages, the ability of the lens to accommodate decreases.  Changes in the size of the pupil also contribute to the clarity of an image formed on the retina.  When the size of the pupil is small, objects that are farther away can be seen more clearly.  However, because the pupil is small, less light is allowed to pass through into the eye.  When the size of the pupil is large, more light is allowed to pass through, but the phenomena of spherical and chromatic aberration will blur the image slightly.

How Does the Retina Process Information From Light?

Two types of photoreceptors are located on the retina: rods and cones.  These two cell types are specialized for different types of vision.  Cones allow humans to see in color, while rods are very sensitive to light and provide black and white vision.  Although cones are very useful for daytime vision, there are many more rods than cones on the retina.  When light strikes a photoreceptor cell, the cell releases potassium to its external environment.  This results in an electrical change inside the photoreceptor known as “hyperpolarization.”  The more light that strikes the cell, the more hyperpolarized the cell becomes.  When the photoreceptor is hyperpolarized, it sends a signal to a cell called a bipolar cell.  These bipolar cells will then send signals to cells called ganglion cells, which transmit the information to the brain. If too much light strikes the photoreceptor, the molecular machinery inside the cell is able to turn the system “off” (this is why you see spots after staring at a bright light).  This phenomenon is called “light adaptation.”


Disorders of the eye

The eye is far from “perfect”, as there are many, many disorders of the eye that a large portion of the population experiences.  Take a look around you:  how many people require glasses, contact lenses, or laser eye surgery?

Two common problems of vision that occur in human populations are myopia (nearsightedness) and hyperopia (farsightedness).  Individuals with myopia and hyperopia have trouble focusing images directly onto their retina.  Nearsighted individuals focus light in front of their retina, which may be caused by an elongation of the eyeball or increased curvature of the cornea.  Farsighted individuals focus light behind their retina, which may be caused by shortness of the eyeball.  Both myopia and hyperopia can be corrected using lenses, such as glasses and contacts, or through surgical means.  Another common problem of vision, called presbyopia, occurs with aging.  As humans age, their lenses become less elastic, and therefore less responsive to adjustments.  This results in difficulty seeing close objects, which must be located farther away in order for the eye to focus the image onto the retina.  Presbyopia may be corrected using reading glasses or bifocals. 
    
Dichromacy, or “color blindness,” is a genetic disorder that prevents some individuals from detecting certain colors of light.  Color blindness comes in two basic forms: protanopia, where the individual cannot detect red and similarly colored light, and deuteranopia, where the individual cannot detect green and similarly colored light. Other common eye disorders include age-related macular degeneration (AMD), glaucoma, and cataracts.    

So, is the eye irreducibly complex? 

Our current understanding of the evolution of the eye, and the examples we find in nature today, provide us with the building blocks for the gradual refinement and tuning to today’s vertebrate eye.  It tells us that simpler “eyes”, beginning with a patch of photosensitive cells, could work and provide an adaptive role until we reach the modern eye.  This, then, demonstrates that the eye is not irreducibly complex, does not provide evidence for the falsification of evolution, and does not require an intelligent designer.

To quote Dr. Steven Novella, off his Neurologica Blog:
It is ironic that creationists continue to use the eye as the example of the complex structure that defies evolutionary explanation – when in reality the various eyes that have evolved in nature represent one of the best lines of morphological evidence for evolution.
  


References and Further Reading
 
Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup
Trevor D. Lamb, Shaun P. Collin & Edward N. Pugh
 

Thursday, January 20, 2011 ~ Have your say...

10 Myths and Misconceptions About Evolution

Evolution VS Creationism:  How many times have you heard those words bundled together? 

Although there is no real debate in the scientific community with respect to evolution, creationists and “IDers” (those who believe in Intelligent Design, a fancy name for “creationism”) attempt to stir the pot in the quest to find the origin of life.

The Skeptic’s Society has once again created a wonderful ePamphlet that is available for download on their site.  It tackles the myths and misconceptions surrounding evolution, and is titled:  “Top 10 Myths About Evolution (And How We Know It Really Happened)”.

The myths include:

1)  If humans evolved from apes, why are apes still around?  (incidentally, this topic has been reviewed in a previous article on Relatively Interesting, called “If Humans Evolved From Apes, 
Why Do Apes Still Exist?”)


Humans, apes, and monkeys are only distant evolutionary “cousins.” We come not from apes but from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human that lived millions of years in the past. In fact, during the last seven million years many human-like species have evolved; some examples include Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis. All of these went extinct at different times, leaving just us to share the planet with a handful of other primates.


2)  There are too many gaps in the fossil record for evolution to be true.


In fact, there are lots of intermediate fossils. Archaeopteryx, for example, is one of the earliest known fossil birds with a reptilian skeleton and feathers. There is now evidence that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, Tiktaalik is an extinct lobe-finned fish intermediate to amphibians, there are now at least six intermediate fossil stages in the evolution of whales, and in human evolution there are at least a dozen intermediate fossil stages since hominids branched off from the great apes six million years ago. Considering the exceptionally low probability that a dead plant or animal will fossilize it is remarkable we have as many fossils as we do. First the dead animal has to escape the jaws of scavengers. Then is has to be buried under the rare circumstances that will cause it to fossilize instead of decay. Then geological forces have to somehow bring the fossil back to the surface to be discovered millions of years later by the handful of paleontologists looking for them.

3)  If evolution happened over millions of years, why doesn’t the fossil record show gradual change?

Sudden changes in the fossil record are not missing evidence of gradualism; they are extant evidence of punctuation. Species are stable over long periods of time and so they leave plenty of fossils in the strata while in their stable state. The change from one species to another, however, happens relatively quickly (on a geological time scale) in a process called punctuated equilibrium. One species can give rise to a new species when a small “founder” group breaks away and becomes isolated from the ancestral group. This new founder group, as long as it remains small and detached, may experience relatively rapid change (large populations are genetically stable). The speciational change happens so rapidly that few fossils are left to record it. But once changed into a new species, the individuals will retain their phenotype for a long time, leaving behind many well-preserved fossils. Millions of years later this process results in a fossil record that records mostly stability. The punctuation is there in between the equilibrium.

4)  No one has ever seen evolution happen.

Evolution is a historical science confirmed by the fact that so many independent lines of evidence converge to this single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, embryology, population genetics, genome sequencing, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life evolved. Creationists demand “just one fossil transitional form” that shows evolution. But evolution is not proved through a single fossil. It is proved through a convergence of fossils, along with a convergence of genetic comparisons between species, and a convergence of anatomical and physiological comparisons between species, and many other lines of inquiry. (In fact we can see evolution happen—especially among organisms with short reproductive cycles that are subject to extreme environmental pressures. Knowledge of the evolution of viruses and bacteria is vital to medical science.)

5)  Science claims that evolution happens by random chance. 

Natural selection is not “random” nor does it operate by “chance.” Natural selection preserves the gains and eradicates the mistakes. To illustrate this, imagine a monkey at a
typewriter. In order for the monkey to type the first 13 letters of Hamlet’s soliloquy by chance, it would take 2613 number of trials for success. This is 16 times as great as the total number of seconds that have elapsed in the lifetime of the solar system. But if each correct letter is preserved and each incorrect letter eradicated, the phrase “tobeornottobe” can be “selected for” in only 335 trials, or just seconds in a computer program. Richard Dawkins defines evolution as “random mutation plus nonrandom cumulative selection.” It is the cumulative selection that drives evolution. The eye evolved from a single, light sensitive spot in a cell into the complex eye of today not by chance, but
through thousands of intermediate steps, each preserved because they made a better eye. Many of these steps still exist in nature in simpler organisms.

6)  Only an intelligent designer could have made something as complex as the eye.

The anatomy of the human eye shows that it is anything but “intelligently designed.” It is built upside down and backwards, with photons of light having to travel through the cornea, lens, aqueous fluid, blood vessels, ganglion cells, amacrine cells, horizontal cells, and bipolar cells, before reaching the light sensitive rods and cones that convert
the light signal into neural impulses, which are then sent to the visual cortex at the back of the brain for processing into meaningful patterns. For optimal vision, why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down?

7)  Evolution is "only a theory".

All branches of science are based on theories, which are grounded in testable hypothesis and explain a large and diverse body of facts about the world. A theory is considered robust if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are explanatory ideas about those data. Constructs and other nontestable statements are not a part of science. The theory of evolution meets all the criteria of good science, as determined by Judge William Overton in the Arkansas creationism trial:


• It is guided by natural law.
• It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
• It is testable against the empirical world.
• Its conclusions are tentative.
• It is testable and falsifiable.


If you can find fossil mammals in the same geological strata as trilobites then evolution would be falsified. No one has ever found such contradictory data.

8)  Evidence for human evolution has turned out to be fake, frauds, or fanciful.

Eager to discredit evolution, creationists ignore hominid fossil discoveries and cherry pick examples of hoaxes and mistakes in the belief that mistakes in science are a sign of weakness. This is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science, which constantly advances by using both its mistakes and the successes. Its ability to build cumulatively on the past is how science progresses. The self-correcting feature of the scientific method is one of its most powerful assets. Hoaxes like Piltdown Man, and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hespero-pithecus, are, in time, corrected. In fact, it wasn’t creationists who exposed these errors, it was scientists who did so. Creationists simply read about the scientific exposé of these errors, and then duplicitously claimed them as their own. Piltdown Man and backwards? This “design” only makes sense if natural
selection built eyes from available materials, and in the particular configuration of the ancestral organism’s pre-existing organic structures. The eye shows the pathways of evolutionary history, not intelligent design.

9)  The second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems. Since the Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sun—it is an open-dissipative system—entropy may decrease and order increase (though the sun itself is running down in the process). Thus, the Earth is not strictly a closed system and life may evolve without violating natural law. As long as the sun is burning, life may continue thriving and evolving, just like automobiles may be prevented from rusting, burgers can be heated in ovens, and all manner of things in apparent violation of Second Law entropy may continue. But as soon as the sun burns out, entropy will take its course and life on Earth will cease.

10)  Evolution can’t account for morality.

As a social primate species we evolved a deep sense of right and wrong in order to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation, and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. As well, evolution created the moral emotions that tell us that lying, adultery, and stealing are wrong because they destroy trust in human relationships that depend on truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for property. It would not be possible for a social primate species to survive without some moral sense. On the constitution of human nature is built the constitutions of human societies.

Bonus myth (not in the pdf):
  “Believing” in evolution is no different than believing in any faith based religion.

I think this is more of an error in semantics when using the word “belief or believe”.  For example, I don’t “believe” in evolution.  I accept evolution because there is a convergence of evidence in the scientific community that indicates that evolution is a completely viable theory to explain the diversity of life.

I find it interesting to observe the debate between evolutionists and creationists.  The myths listed above invariably come up in many discussions, and the creationist will cling to some obscure anomaly, thinking that this one “missing piece” can bring down the entire theory.  Since one fact does not prove a theory, one anomaly does not disprove it either.  Again, it’s the convergence of data that makes a theory sound.

In any case, I highly recommend the aforementioned download, as it can be used as a plain-English, simple way to defend evolution against its myths and misconceptions.


References:

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Questions for Theists, God, and Religion

This is a list of questions for theists, believers, faith, God, and religion.  They apply to all religions, though you will note that they are more Christian-centric only because this is the religion I am most familiar with. 

These questions are asked with the assumption that God exists and the text in the bible is true.  If these assumptions are false, then all of the questions become irrelevant.  To attempt to answer these myself would be a formidable task, so I shall leave the answers to you, the readers...


If there is one God and one religion, what happens to the rest of the people who do not belong to that religion?  Do they go to hell?  Why should they suffer if they were raised in an area which did not expose them to the “one true religion”?  For example, there are 1.2 billion Catholics.  What happens to the 5.6 billion people who are not Catholic?  What happened to the people who died prior to the organized religion or the concept of God – default to eternal damnation?

If God is all powerful, why does he not just destroy Satan, once and for all?  Why is Satan allowed to tempt humans?  Why would God even allow the creation of Hell? 

Do only humans go to heaven?  What happens to young humans who die and go to heaven?  What happens to a baby (assuming it’s baptized) – are they in heaven as a baby, permanently?  How then, do they communicate, with the others in heaven, since they haven’t had a chance to learn anything in life, or develop their own personality?

Why does a perfect God – who is all powerful and has all knowledge – require us to praise Him by going to Sabbath?  Should it not be sufficient for people to thank/praise the God in their own way?  Why does He require praise at all?  Why do only humans need to praise Him, while other species are off the hook?

If God created the Earth and all species that populate it, then why would God wait roughly 4.5 billion years before making humans on Earth.  Worse still, why wait roughly 13.2 billion years, the age of the universe, before creating life as we know it?

If humans are special, and the Earth is the only planet with intelligent life (at least as intelligent as humans), then why go to the trouble of creating the cosmos?  Why bother creating hundreds of billions of galaxies, and thousands of billions of stars? 

 "Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us? (5()"
— Michael Shermer (Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design)

If the Universe came to be in two ways:  from natural processes, or from God.  Theists will say “But what was there before the Big Bang?”.  The answer?  Scientists don’t really know, yet – but they are working on it.  But atheists can ask the same question, “What was there before God created the universe?”… to which theists will reply “God always was, and always will be!”.  Well that’s not very fair now, is it?  Circular reasoning is impermissible as evidence for truth.

If the Bible (or any other religious text) is “truth” and “law” – then is it not strange that humans are accepting laws written by men, and that there are many different versions seen from different perspectives?  Which one is correct?

Why is it acceptable to join a religion that was created by a single man?  For example, King Henry created the Church of England.  How do we know if God approves this religion?  How do we know that any religion is approved?  Why is it acceptable for religions to evolve?  Various religions have changed over time due to cultural pressures – how to we know these changes are “authorized”?  (Don’t get me wrong – it’s a good thing that religions evolve)

Why is there often contempt for those who question religion?  If humans were given the gift of intelligence and the freedom of choice, why should they be punished for using it?  Why is there continuous conflict between different religions, and between those who believe, and those who don’t?  How can anyone know if they are correct? 

Why is the universe, Earth, and life so imperfect?  Why would a god create a world where there is so much... wrong?  Neil Degrasse Tyson says it best in his speech, where he describes how it seems much more likely that our univere was put together by chance, rather than by design.  

For example, in our universe, most planet orbits are unstable; less than 3% of a gas cloud actually makes a star;  most places kill life instantly via heat, radiation, or cold;  galaxy orbits brings can bring us perilously close to a supernova;, and it appears that we live in a one-way universe that will wind down to oblivion.  

On Earth, we have earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and tsunamis that ravage cities and villages; 2/3 of the surface of the Earth is uninhabitable by humans; mass extinctions occur from  disease, climate change, or asteroids;  90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct; and it took roughly 3.5 billions years before multicellular life arose.  

In humans, diseases are common:  childhood lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinsons, ALS, birth defects;, we succumb to vision loss with age, our teeth fall out, we get Alzeimers, cancer, and a host of other age related diseases;  our energy system is inefficient - we exhale most of the Oxygen we inhale;  since we are warm-blooded, must eat constantly compared to reptiles; we are practically comatose for 1/3 of our lives while we sleep; we can't detect dangerous magnetic fields, ionizing radiation fields, Radon, CO, CH4, CO2, and a host of other poisonous materials.  A perfect design?  An intelligent design?  It sure doesn't appear to be.  It's full of mistakes.

How should one respond?

There must be some rules to answering these questions…

Rule # 1:  Any response should be refutable; otherwise we’re no further ahead.  For example, “God always was and always will be.” or “God works in mysterious ways…”  or “There’s miracles everyday…”  are not acceptable answers– because it’s impossible to prove or disprove any of them.  It’s fine to believe in unfalsifiable theories, but you must recognize that the idea is then based on faith and not science.  The two should not be confused.

Rule #2:  Legitimate evidence should be provided for any claims.  Remember, the burden of proof rests on those making extraordinary claims, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Rule #3:  When presenting a claim, avoid using any common logical fallacies.





References:



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...