A Creator is Evident

[Poindexter]

Now if we apply the OP's philosophical question to the eyes, is their beauty proof that they had to be designed intentionally by someone or can they be explained by natural selection?

Maybe we can go even deeper here, how was the creator able to have a flare for colours and design without being able to see? In other words, could the eyes have been designed by a creator who didnt have at least one good eye to start with? Which begs the question, what created the creator's eye, natural selection or another creator? :-\

[Farmmaa]

The eye is really not so much an intelligent design

The most obvious design flaw of the retina is that the cellular layers are backwards. Light has to travel through multiple layers in order to get to the rods and cones that act as the photo-receptors. There is no functional reason for this arrangement – it is purely quirky and contingent.

Even in a healthy and normally functioning eye this arrangement causes problems. Because the nerve fibers coming from the rods and cones need to come together as the optic nerve, which then has to travel back to the brain, there needs to be a hole in the retina through which the optic nerve can travel. This hole creates a blind spot in each eye. Our brains compensate for this blind spot so that we normally don’t perceive it – but it’s there

Also – the evolutionary line that led to modern squid evolved eyes independently from the vertebrate line leading to humans. The squid eye has the photoreceptor layer at the top of the retina, unlike the vertebrate configuration which has it at the bottom. It is therefore demonstrably possible for this better configuration to work. Evolutionary contingency reaches different results from different histories, but why would a top-down designer use a superior design in one case and a sub-optimal design in another?

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... human-eye/

The list of flaws goes on. The eye is, in fact, not well designed at all.
And why would a creator give a Squid a better designed and functioning eye than humans ???
Why would he give spiders so many eyes ? As a joke ? An experiment ?
Why give a pistol shrimp the ability to see a vast spectrum of colors that the human eye could never comprehend ?

Which came first - the chicken or the egg ?

It's a question that science is trying to find answers for...and they are getting closer all the time.
Creationists ignore the dilemma completely .
God has just always been there...no need to explain, no need to question - it just is, that's all.

[Glacier]

The eye is very complex and highly functional. Anyone who says that it isn't well designed while being able to design a better one themselves is probably named Thinktank.

[Farmmaa]

The eye is very complex and highly functional. Anyone who says that it isn't well designed while being able to design a better one themselves is probably named Thinktank.

No one said the eye is not functional and complex, but many in the medical and scientific fields agree that it is not well designed.
I'll take their opinions over yours.
None of them have ever said that they are, or could design a better one....just that the ones we have are flawed in several ways...not a perfect design by any means.

[I Think]

Our backs were not designed well for bipeds either.

[Ka-El]

Is it possible to believe in both creation and evolution?

yes

[Farmmaa]

Is it possible to believe in both creation and evolution?

I agree, it is, to a point.
You can not believe in the biblical version of creation and still believe in evolution.
The bible makes it pretty clear that everything was created as we see t today - plants, animals, the heavens...and humans. After all, we were created in gods image.
Sp...unless god looks like a Neanderthal or one of our other ancient prehistoric relatives - we couldn't have been created in his image.

You can, however, believe that the beginnings of life on earth...the primordial muck, the simple life forms that eventually evolved in to what we have today...were placed here by some sort of higher being or creator.

Or...you can just believe in science.
Evolution is a theory...much of it already scientifically proven.
Creation isn't even a theory, it is a notion.

[Glacier]

I agree, it is, to a point.
You can not believe in the biblical version of creation and still believe in evolution.
The bible makes it pretty clear that everything was created as we see t today - plants, animals, the heavens...and humans. After all, we were created in gods image.
Sp...unless god looks like a Neanderthal or one of our other ancient prehistoric relatives - we couldn't have been created in his image.

That's actually not true. The "image of God" means being able to commune with God or having a soul. The Bible doesn't really say much of anything on evolution.

[Donald G]

The finished product for those "created in God's image" must differ a great deal depending on where you are in the world and what your state of health is at birth. I wonder which image from which time period in the genetic development chain is the right one.

Religious beliefs "evolved" too. From one group of religions to the next. Thousands of times over millions of years.

[Farmmaa]

That's actually not true. The "image of God" means being able to commune with God or having a soul. The Bible doesn't really say much of anything on evolution.

That is simply your personal interpretation of the image of god though Glacier.
Many others take it to literally mean that humans were created to look like god....who they view as a blood and flesh being.
Still others believe that humans were created in the vision of what god saw us to look and act like.
Many religions, many beliefs, many views and opinions.
Yours no more valid or provable than anyone else's.

Of course the bible doesn't say much of anything on evolution, it contradicts evolution.
Those who wrote it had no knowledge of science, archeology, genetics or evolution.

[Ka-El]

you do realize i hope that quantum mechanics proves something can pop out of nothing

Here's the thing that needs to be said up front: if what you mean by the question is a tacit "... and it turns out that particles actually DO have definite positions and momenta just like in classical physics" the answer is "no". Classical physics is never coming back. Quantum mechanics may well be wrong, in the sense that the other answers have already said, but the alternative is not a return to classical physics.

The alternative is some other theory that's even less familiar. Ordinary "quantum mechanics" has already been replaced by "quantum field theory". We only study ordinary QM because QFT is even harder than QM, and QM itself seems pretty hard for people to understand.

The name "Quantum mechanics" has taken on a meaning of "all that quantum stuff that isn't classical mechanics", and most colloquial speech doesn't really distinguish "quantum mechanics" from "quantum field theory". In that general sense of "quantum mechanics", it is absolutely certain. It may well be replaced by some other formalism, quite possibly a very different formalism, but from a perspective of somebody asking a question like this, all of those things are identically "not classical physics".

As others have said, we already know that there are holes in our understanding that will be replaced by some future theory. In that sense of the term "quantum mechanics" has already been superseded, and will be superseded again. But there is zero chance it will be replaced by some theory that bears the hallmarks of the theory we already discarded. It's gone. It was gone a century ago. Time to accept it.

[Donald G]

IMO your comment that "It's gone. It was gone a century ago. Time to accept it." applies more to religion than it does to scientific theories that, unlike religion, are adjusted as further evidence is discovered.

I have no problem with people using "religion" to get by in life unless they try to impose their mythical thinking on others.

[Ka-El]

*removed*

[Farmmaa]

It's difficult to understand posts that are so jumbled with grammatical errors and misinformation.
Quantum Mechanics was obsolete over a century ago ?
Seems to me it just started coming in to the mainstream at that time.
Quantum Field Theory hasn't replaced, nor has it dismissed QM, it is merely an extension of the scientific studies of QM.

As Donald G stated - Science is ever evolving, as such, there was nothing in his post that suggests he misunderstood what you were attempting to say.

[Ka-El]

As Donald G stated - Science is ever evolving, as such, there was nothing in his post that suggests he misunderstood what you were attempting to say.

If you read my post more carefully you will note I have never suggested science was not ever evolving (quite the contrary, in fact), nor have I ever defended religion – as Donald’s rebuttal implies. What I did say, and what you could rebut, if so inclined, is that “ordinary” quantum mechanics has already been replaced by "quantum field theory", and I suggested we only study ordinary QM because QFT is even harder than QM, and QM itself seems pretty hard for most people to understand. Cheers.