Evidence for God from Science

I'm debating with some guys at the minute and the human eye seems to be criticized a lot for some of it's design mechanisms. We've cleared up most of these but we're left with the problem of the lens which makes the images upside down, which then means the brain has to work to turn them the right way up. I'm struggling to find some real answers for why God made it this way? Has anyone any articles etc that can help me? There is an article on the home page but after mentioning the upside down stuff it then says: ''The brain does some fancy processing, including inverting the image and interpreting what is seen (this is a whole other story that cannot be covered here).'' so I'm still left none the wiser.


God bless Catherine

How is the upside down image a problem? The eye still has to send that image data to your brain so regardless on whether it was upside down or not, the data would still have to be interpreted by the brain. Your brain has to work regardless. God could have make the image right side up with an extra lens in your eye, but there would really be no point. Besides, the brain is very versatile. They did this one experiment on a cat where they put some kind of goggles on him that made everything upside down. For a little bit, he couldn't figure it out, but eventually was able to move around normally after his brain adjusted.

Yes,

There are some cool experiments that they can do with googles that shift he perception by some 20 degrees from what actual events. A football player throws the football too far in front of the quarterback at first but then learns to compensate.

Think of it this way, in order to have an image right side up on our retina we would need another lens to flip it around, requiring another part, needless and inefficient when you consider that the brain can quite easily work within this image that is upside down.

I would say that this is the least of the worries when talking about the design of the eye.

Wow, thanks guys, these are great answers. I'll let you know what they say.

How is the upside down image a problem? The eye still has to send that image data to your brain so regardless on whether it was upside down or not, the data would still have to be interpreted by the brain. Your brain has to work regardless. God could have make the image right side up with an extra lens in your eye, but there would really be no point. Besides, the brain is very versatile. They did this one experiment on a cat where they put some kind of goggles on him that made everything upside down. For a little bit, he couldn't figure it out, but eventually was able to move around normally after his brain adjusted.

zoegirl wrote:Yes,

There are some cool experiments that they can do with googles that shift he perception by some 20 degrees from what actual events. A football player throws the football too far in front of the quarterback at first but then learns to compensate.

Think of it this way, in order to have an image right side up on our retina we would need another lens to flip it around, requiring another part, needless and inefficient when you consider that the brain can quite easily work within this image that is upside down.

I would say that this is the least of the worries when talking about the design of the eye.

Very interresting !

In my case I have been operated in my 2 eyes and one major operation in my right eye left me with a sparkeled vision in front of lights when it is becoming darker at night. I had to stop driving mostly because I was putting other lives in danger. It did not learn to compensate.

Zebulon

Zebulon wrote: Very interresting !

In my case I have been operated in my 2 eyes and one major operation in my right eye left me with a sparkeled vision in front of lights when it is becoming darker at night. I had to stop driving mostly because I was putting other lives in danger. It did not learn to compensate.

Zebulon

Being near-sighted, objects at distance are blurry while nearby objects are clear. I don't know the eye terminology, but it's a problem with the lens section of my eye. And thus a blurry image was projected on the back of my eye. The problem was not with my brain being unable to compensate. The problem was with my brain getting bad data in the first place. So yeah, while your brain is indeed versatile, there is just so much it can do.

Recommend also checking out the article on this website: The Washing Machine from the Bad Place: A Lesson on Intelligent Design

These 'arguments' haven't impressed my atheist friends. I think I need to 'prove' or 'disprove' evolution for myself once and for all. I don't understand their objections and I shouldn't deny something until I've checked it out myself. The articles I read by Christians are usually simplistic which is good because I can understand them but don't go into enough detail. I've got 'The Ancestor's Tale' and ' The Selfish Gene' so I better get on and read and see why many if not most scientists accept evolution and not creation. If anyone has any advice to give me I'd much appreciate it.

Hi Catherine.

I know this may not at all apply to your thinking , but I'll say it anyway; There are no absolutes in the evolution debates short of microevolution (adaptation).

Although scientifically I don't know much about evolution, I read all the articles I come across just to stay somewhat informed about new discoveries and dabble a bit with the science also.

Just as many others today, I realize there is evidence to support evolution but I don't agonize over it. For a growing number of us, it's as simple as this; If evolution is true, then GOD made evolution-end of story!

I hope this helps.

Edit; btw, some atheists will not bend toward anything that even remotly hints at the possibility of any kind of creator.

catherine wrote:These 'arguments' haven't impressed my atheist friends.

You were expecting otherwise? There is no magical argument to persuade someone from their beliefs. People generally believe what they will, and then work from there.

Hi Kurieuo,

I agree with the points you make. I don't think it need 'do away with' a Creator, if it turns out Evolution is proveable and actually occurs, but I would struggle to see how God would use this gradual way because then you have creatures that aren't fully human for instance?? How could there then only be one man originally etc. It does seem to open up a bit of a minefield in terms of harmonizing with the Bible. It will be good to study this though. Maybe the two can be married. We shall see. I enjoy debating God etc with anyone, but atheists tend to be intelligent and know their stuff, but like all people, some are more open minded than others.

catherine wrote:Hi Kurieuo,

I agree with the points you make. I don't think it need 'do away with' a Creator, if it turns out Evolution is proveable and actually occurs, but I would struggle to see how God would use this gradual way because then you have creatures that aren't fully human for instance?? How could there then only be one man originally etc. It does seem to open up a bit of a minefield in terms of harmonizing with the Bible. It will be good to study this though. Maybe the two can be married. We shall see. I enjoy debating God etc with anyone, but atheists tend to be intelligent and know their stuff, but like all people, some are more open minded than others.

Well I personally disagree with the forms of evolution an Atheist must embrace on scientific grounds.

If the people you discuss these issues with believe in evolution on the argument that if God exists, then God must create a perfect world, well then it isn't going to take much to convince them. That argument isn't very sound however. I agree the world isn't perfect. I further believe God never intended it to be perfect, but rather sufficient for the purposes He intended for it. The perfect is what is to come. At least that is what I understand Christ promising in Scripture and Paul teaching.

Regarding the intelligence, my experience is the opposite. Especially when it comes to the philosophical spectrum. I wonder what Antony Flew would say of your comments. It is far more easier to attack and criticize than respond to challenges against such which requires much more thinking. You will find many Atheists like to do the former, without worrying about the later of justifying their own beliefs.

Anyhow, you might be interested in Richard Swinburne's justification of Theism. I draw your attention to 'III. The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men'. Throw that at those you dialogue with and muse over their reactions. See how well they intelligently respond to the actual content within.

Kurieuo wrote: If the people you discuss these issues with believe in evolution on the argument that if God exists, then God must create a perfect world, well then it isn't going to take much to convince them. That argument isn't very sound however. I agree the world isn't perfect. I further believe God never intended it to be perfect, but rather sufficient for the purposes He intended for it. The perfect is what is to come. At least that is what I understand Christ promising in Scripture and Paul teaching.

Regarding the intelligence, my experience is the opposite. Especially when it comes to the philosophical spectrum. I wonder what Antony Flew would say of your comments. It is far more easier to attack and criticize than respond to challenges against such which requires much more thinking. You will find many Atheists like to do the former, without worrying about the later of justifying their own beliefs.

Anyhow, you might be interested in Richard Swinburne's justification of Theism. I draw your attention to 'III. The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men'. Throw that at those you dialogue with and muse over their reactions. See how well they intelligently respond to the actual content within.

I'm glad this subject came up - very informative I like what you said about things not being perfect here. I don't know the words in the original Hebrew (or whatever), but God said His creation was "good." And after that, corruption came in as well. And so perfection is for later. Thanks for that url reference as well!

Kurieuo wrote: Regarding the intelligence, my experience is the opposite. Especially when it comes to the philosophical spectrum. I wonder what Antony Flew would say of your comments. It is far more easier to attack and criticize than respond to challenges against such which requires much more thinking. You will find many Atheists like to do the former, without worrying about the later of justifying their own beliefs.

Anyhow, you might be interested in Richard Swinburne's justification of Theism. I draw your attention to 'III. The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men'. Throw that at those you dialogue with and muse over their reactions. See how well they intelligently respond to the actual content within.

I'm happy to say these seem a level headed group and not usually prone to attack for the sake of attacking a Christian. I've had a quick glance at part 3 of the above article and once I finish reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' I'll see if there is anything in it that would be of use. You make a good point about the 'perfect' that is to come, but of course we then move into the supernatural realm, which for scientifically minded people who don't believe in a supernatural God, is 'nonsense'.

catherine wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Regarding the intelligence, my experience is the opposite. Especially when it comes to the philosophical spectrum. I wonder what Antony Flew would say of your comments. It is far more easier to attack and criticize than respond to challenges against such which requires much more thinking. You will find many Atheists like to do the former, without worrying about the later of justifying their own beliefs.

Anyhow, you might be interested in Richard Swinburne's justification of Theism. I draw your attention to 'III. The Argument from the Evolution of Animals and Men'. Throw that at those you dialogue with and muse over their reactions. See how well they intelligently respond to the actual content within.

I'm happy to say these seem a level headed group and not usually prone to attack for the sake of attacking a Christian. I've had a quick glance at part 3 of the above article and once I finish reading 'The Blind Watchmaker' I'll see if there is anything in it that would be of use. You make a good point about the 'perfect' that is to come, but of course we then move into the supernatural realm, which for scientifically minded people who don't believe in a supernatural God, is 'nonsense'.

Firstly, many scientifically minded people do believe in God. The Blind Watchmaker I have not read, but interviews I've heard and articles I read make it sound like Dawkins should stick to his own field of science rather than dabble in reason better left to philosophers.

If anyone challenges Christianity on the arguments you have presented based upon imperfection in the world, then they are working with Christian tenets. If a challenge to Christian beliefs re: God is made, then a response which sheds more clarity on such Christian beliefs is fair game. For the challenger to retort, "Oh, but now your into the supernatural realm so I don't have to listen", well they moved into the Christian realm in the first place to take their jab. To attack one area of Christian belief ignoring the totality of Christian beliefs is to commit a kind of composition fallacy. The person who makes a challenge on Christian beliefs, and then does not want to listen to any further Christian beliefs which would douse their challenge because of x, begins begging the question. They will believe what they want to at the end of the day because they believe what they are setting out to prove to already right. This is also quite strawmanish.