# Argument for creationism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 6, 2013, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621 "2013-12-06T00:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/21 "2013-12-06T02:06:28Z")
[http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/eastern\_mole.htm](http://www.fcps.edu/islandcreekes/ecology/eastern_mole.htm) These critters have eyes that are covered in skin and fur. Explain the intelligence in that design. I recommend these links for a well done all encompassing rebuttal of creationism > **[AronRa](https://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa)** > > Share your videos with friends, family, and the world ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/22 "2013-12-06T02:20:52Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > The patch does not need to connect to a brain. There are a lot of living things with no brain and no nerves. In fact, there are more living things without them than with them. I think you will find that everything that has functional (proto-)eyes has nerves of some sort, though, and teh eyes connect to the network of nerves. Nerves show up pretty early in multicellular animal evolution, I think, as soon as you move from sessile things like sponges to simple free swimming organisms (things like jellyfish and comb jellies). These animals need a network of nerves, and the oscillatory patten of signals it can produce, in order to produce the rhythmic motions of swimming. Eyes (eye spots), and other sensory organs, are a later addition acquired by animals with simple nervous systems already in place, initially to enable effective, co-ordinated motion. (See my previous post.) ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/23 "2013-12-06T02:27:34Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > “I don’t understand” is never, ever, ever an argument for anything. It’s a pretty good argument for further study. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/24 "2013-12-06T02:33:59Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > I can imagine a creationist saying they “accept the evidence” for creationism. But it doesn’t sound the same when they say it, does it? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/25 "2013-12-06T02:36:12Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > An eye requires so many different parts and attachments to function. How could an organism have all those mutations at once in order to benefit from them? You are [not the first to ask this question.](http://books.google.com/books?id=eTfRotZTXI0C&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/26 "2013-12-06T02:56:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not only as said can eyes help a **creature** without being connected to the brain, but if the light sensitive cells in question are a mutation of, say, the cells involved in touch then they already have that connection. They’d just be detecting something different. It might be wise for you to eschew the word “creature”; its derivation from the word “create” could be interpreted as acceptance of the concept of “Creation.” “Organism” would work. Or “life form.” ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/27 "2013-12-06T02:59:47Z")
There was a great TV documentary about this. IIRC, it was narrated by Alan Alda. Perhaps someone can use those clues and help me remember the name. It was one of a series of shows on science, presented for the layman, and seemed to me to be very nicely done. He presented the argument, “what use is part of an eye” and then showed numerous examples, both lab experiments and existing creatures, which beautifully illustrated a possible development scenario for the mammalian eye (which is indeed a marvel of complexity.) Either my google-fu is failing me, or my memory is tricking me and it wasn’t Alan Alda (probably the latter). It was probably a PBS series of some sort. It’s an understandable question for a reasonable mind. Even Darwin was a bit dumbstruck when facing this question. Fortunately, today we have a lot more basic knowledge and can fill in the gaps that to him seemed nearly insurmountable (and yet he didn’t doubt that it must have happened.) ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/28 "2013-12-06T03:06:54Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > “Organism” would work. Or “life form.” Or “critter” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/29 "2013-12-06T03:07:18Z")
The only argument for creationism is “it makes me feel better, so why not?” So if embracing creationism makes you feel better than embracing evolution (and, y’know, reason and logic), knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/30 "2013-12-06T03:10:05Z")
It was never necessary for vertebrate eyes to evolve to be connected to the brain. The vertebrate eye is actually part of the brain. It was connected before it was an eye. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/31 "2013-12-06T03:27:30Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > I can imagine a creationist saying they “accept the evidence” for creationism. They _have_ some? Sure love to see it. Along with a compelling reason for anyone else to actually _call_ it “evidence.”\* \*This is intended as a preemptive condition that should communicate that just because something appears in the Bible does not make it “evidence,” in the same sense that empirical data is considered “evidence” by the scientific community. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/32 "2013-12-06T03:34:53Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > To clarify, I was never dismissing evolution. I’d believe in it even if the eye argument hadn’t been refuted. I do confess to not doing my research, though. > Even a light sensitive patch seems complex to have sprung from mutations-- with connection to the brain and whatnot When you termed “believers in evolution” in your OP, that sounds like you are marking yourself as a non-believer in evolution. Which is silly, because it’s like saying you don’t believe in the Empire State Building. Evolution is an established fact. It is not an opinion. It’s just unfortunate that the term “theory” has stuck to it, but it is no longer a theory and has not been for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/33 "2013-12-06T03:52:17Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > This is a long-used, exhaustively debunked creationist argument (though the fact that it’s been thoroughly explained millions of times over never seems to prevent anyone from cheerfully using it again) Indeed; to me, in the era of the internet, anyone that cheerfully uses it again is already demonstrating ignoranceX2. This is because Creationists are also ignoring the levels of acceptance evolution has where it counts, and also how old is the research that dealt with those “cheerful” arguments. [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html) > [@](#): > > This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems “absurd in the highest degree”. However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). > [@](#): > > All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists. > > Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona’s single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system. > > Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/34 "2013-12-06T03:57:00Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > When you termed “believers in evolution” in your OP, that sounds like you are marking yourself as a non-believer in evolution. Which is silly, because it’s like saying you don’t believe in the Empire State Building. Evolution is an established fact. It is not an opinion. It’s just unfortunate that the term “theory” has stuck to it, but it is no longer a theory and has not been for a long time. Theory is, in fact, the proper term for a rigorously tested explanation of a particular phenomenon. An explanation that has not been tested is a hypothesis. Popular usage defines “theory” as, essentially, “wild-assed guess,” but that’s not how the term is used in scientific fields. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/35 "2013-12-06T07:52:49Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > Believers in evolution, can someone explain this to me? > The idea of evolution relies on advantageous mutations, right? Which makes sense in theory. But when I think of the mutations required to produce a single working organ, such as an eye, I don’t understand how they could have been passed down successfully. The “What use is half an eye” argument has been dealt with many, many, many times. Best popular treatment IMO is in Richard Dawkins’ _Climbing Mount Improbable_. He refers to an [evolutionary computer model](http://musingsofscience.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/evolution-of-the-eye-nilsson-pelger-and-lens-evolution/) by [Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger](http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/256/1345/53) that show that evolving a human-style eye, given just 3 pre-existing biological tissues, is basically inevitable, and fucking fast - a few hundred thousand years, which is _ahem_ an eyeblink in geological time. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/36 "2013-12-06T08:45:14Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Theory is, in fact, the proper term for a rigorously tested explanation of a particular phenomenon. An explanation that has not been tested is a hypothesis. Popular usage defines “theory” as, essentially, “wild-assed guess,” but that’s not how the term is used in scientific fields. “Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” - \*\*Isaac Asimov \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/37 "2013-12-06T08:55:14Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > Even a light sensitive patch seems complex to have sprung from mutations-- with connection to the brain and whatnot In a small organism with a transparent body, the light sensitive patch could actually just be a few cells on the surface of the brain\* itself - no complicated connection apparatus required (that could arise as a subsequent step) \*‘Brain’ might not be the best possible term here - we could just be talking about a nerve cluster or something. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/38 "2013-12-06T09:02:30Z")
> [@Astrid](#): > > The idea of evolution relies on advantageous mutations, right? Not really. They don’t have to be advantageous. It’s just that the advantageous ones are more likely to get passed on to the next generation. It’s easy to look at something complex and functional like an eye or an ear and think that it must have evolved with that end goal in mind. What you are seeing is the end result of trillions of iterations of trial and error, with the end result being the stuff that worked best. [Actually, you might find this graphic interesting.](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/74661/) ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/39 "2013-12-06T11:41:15Z")
Also, it should be pointed out that, even if it were a valid argument, which it is not, it would in no way constitute an “argument for creationisim”. It would be an argument against evolutionary theory, which is something completely different. Creationists seem to be very fond of assuming that if they can just disprove one teeny tiny bit of evolution, then that means that they win by default. If one bit of evolution is wrong, then GOD DID IT!! But that’s not how it works. To show creationism, you need to have some evidence for it - some observation that can be explained _only_ by God magically making it happen, and by no other way. Disproof of idea A is NOT proof of idea B. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621/40 "2013-12-06T12:29:28Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > In a small organism with a transparent body, the light sensitive patch could actually just be a few cells on the surface of the brain\* itself - no complicated connection apparatus required (that could arise as a subsequent step) > > \*‘Brain’ might not be the best possible term here - we could just be talking about a nerve cluster or something. I think this is an important point to dispel Astrid’s misconceptions and skepticism. Evolution of an eye in an otherwise complex and large organism without structures like nerves or a brain to start with would be extremely unlikely. No matter how useful, my descendants will never in a billion years develop eyes at the back of their head. But if you start small, like Mangetout just wrote, or if you start with some useful structure, which came from something else that started small, you can have sensible development. Imagine a small worm with a nerve system, you can start with a mutation that changes the chemistry of a sensory nerve ending and makes it somewhat photo sensitive, and step, by step, by step, you can get an eye. Astrid, when you stumble on a thought like “Even a light sensitive patch seems complex to have sprung from mutations-- with connection to the brain and whatnot” you are starting too big and with the wrong conditions. Yes, a light sensitive patch is unlikely to spring from mutations if not connected to a brain or having some way of affecting animal behaviour, but that’s not how evolution is thought to have resulted in vision. The evolutionary predecessors of the human eye probably are structures sensing light as far back as when our ancestors superficially resembled planaria and even further back. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/argument-for-creationism/675621.md?page=3)