I was confronted at work by a guy that goes to seminars(bible college?) the other day. He over heard my argument that if the abrahamic god exists, then hes an a-hole. I’m a fulltime painter during the summers, and in apartments, which is odd that he heard me at all. Well he came with a bible and started spitting his game, I knew all of it except for the darwins eye arguement.
The gentlemen explained to me that Darwin scratched all his work once he examined the eye because he said that it could not have evolved. Now read Micheal Behe’s book Darwins Block Box about ireducible complexity and how that some organisms can’t evolve because they are just so simple that if they lost one part they would be worthless and wouldn’t of had a benefit to begin with to evolve to where they got.
Is this what this guy was claiming? It sounds like it, although I looked it up further about Darwin and his eye dibacle and apparently he was a little frazzled but still spent the next page and a half trying to explain different ways an eye could evolve.
Well I was going to ask how the eye might have evolved but, being that I have most of the knowledge mankind created right here at my fingertips I’d do it myself! :)
Still what advantages did each step give to help the organism in some way I wonder? :?