The real alternative to design (Evolution)

by kylie2002 , Wednesday, January 23, 2008, 22:43 (6147 days ago)

I haven't read all the threads, so I apologise if this is repeating what others have said. What struck me most about the download file is that it makes the same mistake as religions make, of assuming that the only alternative to design is chance, eg how could an organ as complex as the eye come about by chance? If you read the whole of Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" he mentions numerous times that chance is equally unrealistic, and equally unbelievable. But as he clearly states, the actual mechanism is Natural Selection. In the case of the eye, the earliest example may have been a mere indentation in the exterior of an organism, which enabled the most rudimentary detection of light and shade. This could have been enough to avoid a predator, which means that that individual's genes survive to breed. Through myriad accidental improvements, which are then favoured through natural selection, you end up with the human eye as it is today. And the giveaway is that our eyes are imperfect and show loads of evidence of their humble origins - no-one seeking to design the perfect eye would come up with what we have.
Natural Selection, Evolution, whatever you want to call it, is more or less irrefutable. It is based on vast amounts of evidence, increasing all the time, and the clincher is that there has never been any new evidence which has not fitted the "theory".
If you want to learn more, try Richard Dawkins' own "The Selfish Gene". It is an absolute eye-opener: pretty much the comprehensive guide to the origins of Life on Earth, and well worth the effort required to understand it.
"Design" is a totally redundant hypothesis.