What Darwin Wrote About THE EYE (Aye, Aye, Aye!)

<
<
As you all know, there's currently a heated debate in the sci
news groups about what Charles Darwin really said about
the evolution of the eye.
<
It's time this matter is cleared up -- simply and concisely --
once and for all.
<
(Actually, I thought I had ended all the confusion back on
Saturday, May 11, 1996, when a pseudo named Michael
Clark accused me of misquoting Darwin. He had the balls
to say I used only a portion of Darwin's quote.)
<
=============================================
<
Here's what I said:
<

<
=============================================
<
Here's what Charles Darwin really said:

(Wake me when it's over) Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z . . . .

Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z z . . .

==========================================================

I thought I said what Darwin had said but David Ian Greig
said what I said wasn't what Darwin really had said because
he said Darwin had more to say than what I said he had
said, then Steve Vickers of the UK butts in and says HE
knows what Darwin really said, claiming what I said he
had said wasn't what Darwin really had said, so I said, 'Okay,
I'll say what they say about what Darwin really said, since
I suppose that this is indeed what he had said, even though
I really don't know for sure if he had said it, but this is what
they say he had said.

<
Up your's, Dimwit!

(Folks, excuse the interruption!)

Actually, it really doesn't matter what Darwin had said
or what these fellas said he had said -- or what they say
I said or didn't say --- since what I said, whether Darwin
said it or not, isn't something that really had to be said.
Perhaps Darwin said what he said because he felt he
had to say it -- he certainly was entitled to say what he
wanted to say. But by saying what they say he had said,
he actually said more than he needed to say, so maybe
he didn't have to say what he said. 'Course, IF Darwin
did say what these fella said he had said, critics could
later say he had nothing to say even though he had said it.

Ed Conrad
Emeritus Professor of Journalism
Ediacara University
Walla Walla, WA

 

Really?

I hadn't noticed.

I thought it was all about anthropological theory.

 

Dear Steve,

This sounds like a "creation versus evolution" debate.

What I would suggest is that the natural eye is
a very sophisticated system, and behaves that
way -- when preceived through engineering
(control-system) analyis.

This is a great tribute to the Designer.

Have I correctly mixed God's creation of the natural eye with equal
respect for the Darwin's "evolutionary process"?

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

Well, except that the eye doesn't work very well for a large number of
people. If people were without glasses, you might see up to half the
population being functionally blind or practically illiterate. Glasses makes
up for what the Designer did not do.

What we *do* see in the creation is a nested hierarchy of eyes and eye
functions. We even see dramatically different types of eyes within the same
environment for creatures of very different lineages. Some confer much
better ability to see in their environment, and so avoid dangers and find
food.

Hmmm. Designer thinks: I don't like the way you look. Oh well, I'll use you
anyway, but here is a very minimal eye so that your kind will get eaten more
often. And here is a good eye to the creature who is going to getcha!

Of course, if one reads John 9 literally and applies Christ's answer about
*why* the man who was born blind was born that way, God has decided in
advance who will get good eyes and who will not. Are medical doctors who put
antibiotics into the eyes of babies thwarting God's plans? Are eye surgeons
who literally give sight back to the blind helping people to defy God? Are
vision specialists who determine what correction a person needs for their
vision arguing with the Great Designer? Somewhere the design is imperfect or
the mechanism is broken. If you wish to "credit" God with designing
imperfection, then ....

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

 

Hmmm. I think I would. After all, this is God's creation, and God knows
exactly what's going on every microsecond. If there are bad eyes, then
surgeons, opticians, glasses and contacts are God's way of fixing that
problem ;-)

 

A nice view on these matters Elmer, I'll keep it in mind.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

I thought that biology and anthropology are compatible with each
other. Similar to physics and chemistry being compatible aka
"Physical Chemistry" for example.

 

Greetings Ed. Actually I agree with you. I'm a huge fan of
Darwin's works and his theories on evolution and that is what he said
in one of his books. I don't understand why people, especially those
that are religious and are creationist have such a big problem with
the guy.

 

So let me get this straight. First gawd makes a really crappy eye design.
Then rather than correct the design at some point in several gazillion
years, he designs some creatures who can a few half-assed, invaisve
procedures that kinda, sorta improve some of the really POS eyes. Is that
about right?

damn. why didn't gawd just get it right the first time? I mean, since he/she
is all perfect and shit.

 

Let's say God's physical and biological laws did it. It works, but as with
most things designed by natural selection, it was a cobbled together job,
but it mostly works.

Yup. You got that right.

Oh, can you cite chapter and verse where God is perfect?