Int. Design Front Page News in Louisville

[Opus]

Well, it seems that the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (bastion of unbiased academic learning that it is) is getting a new class on Intelligent Design added to its curriculum as well as a new department, the Center for Science and Theology. Catholic-turned-Baptist William Dembski, known for "mathematical arguments" about the impossibility of unguided evolution has been brought in to head the Center.
Naturally the good ol' newspaper here in Louisville, "The Courier- Journal" saw fit to give this matter more coverage than the Ashoura suicide bombings in Iraq, also including a second small story about the history of intelligent design using the usual "evolution of the eye" argument.

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by Opus
also including a second small story about the history of intelligent design using the usual "evolution of the eye" argument.

I thought that was an anti-ID argument - the eye is reasonably functional, but truly badly designed. What's the pro-ID argument? Oh wait, nevermind, I'm guessing it's some 'irreducable complexity' nonsense.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards
I thought that was an anti-ID argument - the eye is reasonably functional, but truly badly designed. What's the pro-ID argument? Oh wait, nevermind, I'm guessing it's some 'irreducable complexity' nonsense.

Exactly. That's one that's been thrown at me a few times. "But what about the impossibly complex eye?" I'm glad we evolved the ability to roll our eyes, as that adaptation is beneficial to my survival in those situations.

Why do you say the eye is badly designed? I'd be interested to read up if you have some resources. My own eyes were quite poorly designed, but given a re-design by laser surgery (against the will of our creator who made me in his image, of course.)

Science is wonderful.

[Cassandra]

From the Skeptic Report October 2002
Author Bob Riggins

Things Creationists Hate: "Their Own Eyes
...defeat them doubly. First, creationists trot out that old saw about how "nothing as complex as an eye could evolve in stages, since a half-eye is no good at all." Darwin himself trounced that one roundly by merely observing that there are creatures alive today with eyes in all "stages of development," from a few light-sensitive cells, to a cup-shaped receptor with no proper lens, to eagle eyes far sharper than ours. Other creatures seem to get along fine with half-eyes and even 1/100 eyes.
Then for the final insult, human (the pinnacle of creation) eyes are clearly an engineering mistake! The retinas are inside out. The nerves and blood vessels come out through the light-sensitive area of the retina, producing a blind spot, then spread over the front of the light-receptor cells, so that light has to get past the fibers into the receptors. Why aren't the nerves and capillaries behind the receptors, where they would be out of the way and there would be no need for a blind spot? Squid eyes are arranged just that way. Since ours aren't, one is reminded of the maxim that evolution has to work with the materials at hand, adapting systems already in place, with results that often seem jury-rigged or needlessly complicated. Would an Ultimate Engineer make such an obvious blunder, especially having got it right in creatures created earlier?"

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/vestigial.htm

[SezMe]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Why do you say the eye is badly designed? I'd be interested to read up if you have some resources.
I am sure there are others here with more anatomical knowledge than I but I'll offer my favorite.

The receptors on the retina point toward the back of the eye. This is the worst possible design. It diminishes perceptual ability and leads to the necessity of the optic nerve diving back through the retina, causing the human "blind spot"

This blind spot is, of course, larger in the ID population than in the skeptic population. :D :D

ETA: I see Cassandra beat me to it.