Re: Genesis 1:1-3

Home Forums Re: Genesis 1:1-3

#1034
r m
Member

I am going to include this in both threads:

Darwin himself, in regards to the human eye, said, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”! Darwin did not even believe in his theory as he battled for years over these very illogical and highly improbable discrepancies.

We have one of two possibilities: either you copied this from some creationist author who intentionally omitted data to misrepresent Darwin, or you intentionally omitted data to misrepresent Darwin. Which is it? I’m curious.

For your information:

The Origin of Species

Chapter VI, Page 171 in the Penguin/Mentor Edition

Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saing of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if the numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

He continues, but I think I’ve made my point. Intentional dishonesty is not worthy of inclusion in an intellectual discussion; who ever mis-represented that quote could not have helped knowing they were doind so. It’s this type of thing we see all over the creationist landscape.

screen tagSupport