Plenty here are no doubt familiar with Darwin's quote from Origin of Species: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
What initially troubled Mr. Darwin was the human eye. Of what benefit is a partial eye to a creature? Of course, Darwin apparently "reconciled" this with himself, basically concluding that any amount of vision, no matter how slight, would be of particular advantage to any creature who otherwise did not possess it. Therefore, he would argue that in small increments a species could evolve from blindness to sight. (Can't help but smile at the atheist's version of "I once was blind but now I see")
Well, I'm sure we all see a tremendous amount of absurdity here. Whether we are discussing eyes, wings, or whatever, the idea that evolution gradually and successfully produced these things across a myriad of species (as the vast majority simultaneously became extinct, mind you) is simply preposterous.
But what I am looking for here is a particular atheist argument and I was wondering if anyone has seen it expounded. I've read Dawkins and some of his peers as they try to defend this idea that everything in nature can indeed be reduced to incremental evolution. However, I can't seem to find any atheist explain just how such a thing as an eye or wing as we know it today would ever have begun to develop without any concluded purpose? The closest I can find is Dawkins suggesting that partial wings may have evolved as an advantage to creatures falling out of trees. Is that really it? Is that the best the Godless community can imagine?
Surely there is something more to their argument as this subject has been debated ad nauseam. Can anyone help me graduate to the next level of atheistic rebuttal?


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks












Bookmarks