Piltdown Superman

More and more, we can see that molecules-to-meteorologist evolutionists have some serious problems with logic and prejudicial conjecture. Case in point: bad design. The human eye is badly designed, so God didn't intelligently design it, so it must have been evolution. I reckon such a claim is not the product of intelligence. Logic and science don't work that way, old son. First, the fallacy of bifurcation in the "either God is a bad designer (or doesn't exist), therefore, evolution did it" idea. No third possibility? Anyone? Bueller? Okay. There's the fact  that people talking about this are not ophthalmologists, no do they go beyond a superficial examination to support their anti-God tunnel vision. (When it comes to theistic evolutionists and other false teachers who corrupt the Bible, it's called "proof texting". Very similar to what's happening here.) Another possibility is that they simply do not want  to see that the eye is well-de

Anti-creationists are known for pseudo-intellectual posturing with dysteleology (claiming something was poorly design, so there is no God), but they use false comparisons. Clinton Richard Dawkins and others railed (out of his area of expertise) that the human eye as badly designed, and no amount of science and reason refuting such claims  will be considered by their disciples. They even compare our eyes to those of critters and criticize the Master Engineer. Because atheism. Our eyes were designed for our environment, other eyes were designed for other environments. You savvy that, pilgrim? Whiteleg shrimp image credit: NIH NLM (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) The design of shrimp eyes is extremely intricate and irreducibly complex. The eye reflectors are comprised of nanospheres, and those are optimal for reflecting light so these critters can see in low-light conditions. Humans want to indulge in biomimetics to imitate this, but it would be a huge project requirin

One of the stories that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© like to spread is that the human eye is wired incorrectly, or "backward". Their explanations can be summed up with, "Because evolution". Or mayhaps, "Because Clinton Richard Dawkins said so, and doggone it, Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist and misotheist, so he must be right!" However, claims by uninformed people about the backward wiring of the eye must send ophthalmologists into cachinnation. Credit: Freeimages /  melissa ricquier It has been explained that the human eye was designed by our Creator, and the layout is optimal for embryonic development and beyond. For more about this, see " Eye Design and Evolution " and " Like We Said, Human Eye Design Is Optimal ". Now we can add new research that the retina has the optimal design for sharpness of images, and for determining colors. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have long claimed that our eyes are wired ‘backwar

When it comes to the design of the human eye, we have seen (heh!) that when people claim that the human eye was "poorly designed", they are speaking from ignorance, prejudicial conjecture, and probably an agenda of atheistic naturalism. Here is some material refuting claims of bad eye design, and similar beliefs . While getting into the mechanics of how the Master Engineer designed the eye, we may neglect the non-eye parts that support and protect them. Everything works together, and evolutionary views cannot coherently explain away this fact. Credit: Pixabay /  PublicDomainPictures As an aside, there is a popular myth about the numbers of facial muscles needed to either smile or frown, and we're told that it takes less to smile than we need to frown. Not everyone has the same number of those muscles available, and not everyone uses them. One thing that people often notice is that some smiles do not "reach the eyes"; people are not feeling it, so they curl their

There are some people who claim that the human eye must  be the product of evolution because if it was designed, the Designer did a poor job. (Ironically, they imply that evolution itself does a poor job of designing things with such statements.) These people do not know what they are talking about. Many of them are Dawkinsites, parroting his uninformed opinions from  The Blind Watchmaker. Dilated by the Ophthalmologist Dawkins or these other people who think they can suggest better design possibilities for the human eye should check with ophthalmologists. The scientific realities and intricacies are far different than conjectures rooted in ignorance. Backwardly wired retina? One of the tired old canards on which antitheists have dined out for years is the claim that our eye is stupidly wired back to front, something no decent designer would use. E.g. the vociferous misotheist and eugenicist Clinton R. Dawkins said in his famous book, The Blind Watchmaker :   ‘A

When a creationist of even a little stature writes or posts something refuting a major dogma of evolution, and it must follow, as night the day, a misotheist is compelled to argue. Here is an example of same nonsense, different day. Several weeks ago, I shared the post, " Genetics and the Coffin of Darwinism ." A misotheist shared it on his Fakebook Page for the purpose of ridicule, and attempted to refute the very recent scientific material  with a propaganda piece from 2010 ! (He constantly refuses to read creationist material. Based on my observations, I lack belief that people like this would understand scientific material from either side, even if they did read it. They might even see citations from evolutionists who admit they don't know certain things.) Encounters like this frequently happen regarding the evolution of the eye. Staring fox up close, Unsplash / Erik Mclean Regarding the way fundamentalist Darwinists throw links at creationists to refute us, there is

In the days when Charles Darwin roamed the earth, he wrote that believing the complexities of the eye came about through natural selection seemed "absurd in the highest degree." Then he proceeded to believe absurdity anyway — and increased knowledge makes things worse for evolutionists since then. The human ear is a marvel , but the eye is even more amazing. Both eye and ear gather information from outside, then the brain has to arrange and make sense of the input. The retina alone is about as complex as the brain! Photoreceptors in a human retina, NIH / National Eye Institute (usage does not imply endorsement) The eye "appeared" (Darwinspeak for "evolved"), but once again evolution is assumed, not demonstrated. Researchers claim that the retinal cell types among several critters go way back in evolutionary history and are "conserved." In other words, there is no evidence of evolution. Worse for secularists, they are tacitly admitting not to com

Many of Darwin's disciples are fond of ridiculing creation with prejudicial conjecture along the lines of, "That could not have been created, therefore, evolution". Ironically, they invoke evolution as an entity with the ability to make design choices. It is also contradictory, because they believe their mad gibbering false god does wonderful things, but eyes are poorly designed, so... That is not science, old son, that is blind faith in pantheism. It is also desperation. Speaking of blind , fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists cannot see the Master Engineer's amazing design of eyes. Claims that the human eye are poorly designed have been thoroughly refuted , other critters such as trilobites had exceptional eye construction , and more. Here's an idea: instead of continuing to debunk the foolish assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys©, have them give plausible evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of eyes. Keep going. Press them to explain why diff

Misotheists and other evolutionists frequently use dysteleology arguments, which basically mean that they think something was the product of bad design, therefore, no Creator. The human eye  and the panda's thumb  are two of their favorites. Not too long ago, we considered similar claims about knee joints . This time we go a mite lower and dispense with bad design arguments about the human foot and ankle. Like knees, feet and ankles give us problems. The Master Engineer cannot be blamed when people do not use them in keeping with their design. Feet and ankles, Unsplash / Jan Romero Professor Nathan Lents wanted to slap leather with creationists and Intelligent Design proponents (and possibly to bolster the faith of fundamentalist evolutionists). Like other evolutionists, he apparently argued from ignorance instead of knowledge of the subjects he discussed. Lentz wrote a book about the things that are supposedly products of evolution, no designer need apply. It did not go well. Befo

Critics of creation and Intelligent Design like to come up with certain physiological features and say, "That must be evolution, since it's done so badly. No God did that!" Such remarks are made from their evolutionary biases and not from sound reasoning. Unfortunately, other biased people take these pronouncements and run with them, thinking, "Checkmate, creationists!", but neither Darwin's Cheerleaders nor their mentors know what they're talking about. Henry Vandyke Carter / PD What they believe is evidence for evolution is, when examined by knowledgeable people, actually evidence for the Creator after all. Clinton Richard Dawkins made pronouncements that the human eye is poorly designed, and that has been thoroughly discredited . Dawkins, Don Prothero and others make similar foolish claims about the recurrent laryngeal nerve, but they not only misrepresent its functions, but demonstrate lack of knowledge of embryology and anatomy. Or perhaps

A weak argument that anti-creationists have is to claim that the human eye was obviously not designed by God because it's poorly done. Therefore, evolution's what done it. Such a statement is unscientific and theological in nature. Creationary scientists (including ophthalmologists) who understand the concepts far better than people who duckspeak this objection have taken the spokes out of that wagon wheel years ago; the human eye is indeed designed efficiently . However, since the science was presented by creationists, critics invoked the genetic fallacy and rejected it because of its source. Recent secular research is supporting what creationists have said all along. In addition, they discovered that the eye is more intricate than was previously though. But since they work from their assumptions, all praise, honor, and glory are given to evolution and not to the Creator who gave them their sight. You can’t get any better performance out of an eyeball than the way it

Although we are going to delve into some in-depth biology, there is no need to be intimidated by the jargon. The recurrent laryngeal nerve involves the operation of the larynx, informally called the voice box. I had to look up why it is "recurring", which is based on the Latin re curr , meaning it loops into the opposite direction. We have discussed dysteleology  before, which is the idea that the Master Engineer fouled up, so he does not exist. (Interesting that secularists praise the grandeur of evolution, but blame alleged bad design on the Creator.) "Bad design" claims keep getting refuted because misotheists and other Darwinists are arguing from ignorance and incomplete information. The RLN is subject to this attack. Recurrent laryngeal nerve, WikiComm / Jkwchui from Truth-Seeker2004 ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ), I modified it for visibility Think of their track record. One of the most famous "bad design" claims is the human eye, which has been conclusively ref

Today's post has two sections about the amazing human eye. (This is not repeating how tinhorns who claim that the eye has "bad design" are thoroughly refuted, but you can read about that here .) Today we'll look at some different things. Eyelids and lashes help remove debris. So do tears. Did you know that only humans shed tears through emotion, and Darwinists can't explain this? (You know, like when anti-creationists realize that they are clinging to their rejection of biblical creation despite the scientific evidence they think brings them truth.) When crying through emotion, opioid-like molecules are released and some are re-absorbed so you feel better. When we think about human vision, the first thing that comes to mind is the eye. But just as a star football player performs with other essential players on his team, our eyes are supported by key, well-designed structures that are absolutely essential to making sight possible. We will consider some of

When you need to shoe a horse , you get some basic tools to do the job. The shoe itself was made and given the proper shape through some other tools. Those tools can be considered simple, but they are designed to work together for the purpose of shooing. Credit: Unsplash / Everton Vila Another example is the bicycle. It has a drivetrain that transfers power from pedaling via chain and gears to the wheels, the rider steers the contraption (sometimes at comparatively high speeds) with handlebars, has a saddle that is supposed to be adjusted to optimal height, and brakes. Many of those can be considered machines by themselves, but don't do much good anywhere else. Some tinhorns claim that organisms, Earth, the universe, all have the appearance of design and purpose, but that is not so. Such remarks are assertions of opinion and defy reason. People are designed by the Master Engineer. We can see the specified design and complexity of the ear , the eye , those molecular mach

The vertebrate eye is very well-constructed. Its many critical parts work together so that individual light photons are captured and converted into data that the brain then translates into a coherent visual image. Considering the obvious genius and purpose in eye design, claims that mindless natural processes formed the eye can only be made by ignoring the laws of logic. Recently, Australian neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote a  Scientific American  article titled "Evolution of the Eye." He included a narrated history, as if he had witnessed an actual eyeball evolve. But instead of providing scientific evidence, his presentation relied on logical fallacies.   First, Lamb granted god-like intelligence to an inanimate force he termed "selective pressures." He wrote, "As body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera [vertebrate] variety." But only an intelligent agent—not passive, unth

Over at The Question Evolution Project on Fakebook, we have been posting one of the favorite giggling points of misotheists. Namely, the alleged bad design of the human eye. Such dysteleology is easily refuted with: This  series of articles by Dr. Jason Lisle  (I linked to the first, the rest are linked at the end of each subsequent article) A  video by the late Tommy Mitchell, MD The article " Backwardly wired retina 'an optimal structure': New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins " Others However, atheists have a bumper sticker mentality: "Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it". (It is indeed unfortunate that people who claim to believe in science and reason reject those very things.) Then they use a faulty appeal to authority to people who have no idea what they're talking about, then use all of those things to confirm their biases. In the same way, faulty presuppositions and bad logic are used to deny God because women have miscarriages

Human eyes are a marvel of the Designer's ingenuity, even if Richard Dawkins and other atheopaths (who know nothing about ophthalmology) claim that it is "bad design" — which has been thoroughly refuted . Darwin said that the evolution of the eye by natural selection was "absurd", but because of his worldview, he chose to believe that it evolved anyway . Not only the design of the eyes themselves, but the brain has to be able to process the images so we can function. "Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.” Just as quickly as He made the first human eyes out of dust, Jesus the Creator fixed two men’s broken vision systems as only a Master Biotechnician could. Today, new inner-eye wonders are regularly uncovered, exposing the eye’s miraculous origin.  One critical vitamin-like eye molecule bears the chemistry-friendly name “11-cis-retinal.” When this molecule is embedded in its

When I asked Rusty Swingset (the ramrod at the Darwin Ranch) if he wanted his own home, he told me that he had an eye on a place. It turns out that certain tiny critters have their home on your eye — literally. Researchers were surprised by this development because tears have an antibacterial enzyme, and these bacteria are immune to it. Credit: Unsplash / Victor Freitas We have beneficial bacteria in and on various places, and they coordinate with our immune systems to fight the bad guys. There is also a community of good bacteria living on your eye. (And not just us, but the eyes of animals, it seems.) Researchers wonder how this happened, and determined that here, too, bacteria work with the immune system. Our Creator made bacteria that are not eliminated by the antibacterial enzyme, and are also beneficial. Such a complex, symbiotic relationship defies evolutionary explanations, but just ask Rusty, he'll find something in the excuse mill. Researchers have discover

Some evolutionists like to justify their beliefs in evolution and natural selection by claiming that a feature ( such as the human eye ) is the product of "bad design", so EvolutionDidIt. The "carrying away vessel", the vas deferens, of many males is one such feature that people like Richard Dawkins will regard as poorly designed. He made mistakes that someone with his training should not have made, and also went beyond his expertise to say that he could have done better. (Unfortunately, his disciples accept his words and spread them around in their efforts to negate creation science and Intelligent Design.) Dawkins' alternative designs do not withstand examination. DO NOT go to the URL in the picture   Not only is the vas deferens expertly designed for embryological development, but is efficient from biological, engineering and fluid mechanics viewpoints. The vas deferens is an important part of the male reproductive system. However, some anti-creationi

Some evolutionists act like they are still giddy after spending May Day at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass, dancing around the May Pole and singing hymns to the Bearded Buddha. Mayhaps they joined the ranch hands in consuming peyote for religious purposes. In their ongoing mission to explore strange new ways of affirming evolution, some interesting methods to affirm it without evidence have been written. We have three articles to consider. The first is the longest, about a 12-minute read. Ichthyosaur, Copyright Expired Science Illustrations / Heinrich Harder , 1916 Some of these critters of dinosaur times were porpoise size, others were as big as a whale. Evolution is supposed to be without a plan, but evolutionary paganism was in the reports. Somehow, purpose-driven evolution provided numerous adaptations for marine reptiles. One weird speculation is that they evolved in "bursts." Uh, evidence, please?  Fun fact: The English word please  is a shortened form of plesiosau