The Long War against God-Henry Morris, part 6 of 6

_______________

I have debated with Ark Times Bloggers many times in the past on many different subjects. Here are some of the subjects: communism, morality, origin of evil, and the Tea Party. I have always loved to post about evolution and I have had a chance in the past to correspond with scientists such as Carl Sagan and George Wald and also had the opportunity to write reviews of science related books that were published.

Recently I got into the subject of evolution on the Ark Times Blogand the subject came up on the Ark Times Blog. I go by the username “Saline Republican”:

The person using the username “Archaeopteryx asserted on March 20, 2013:

Saline, writing the quote–out of context–again, doesn’t change anything. You’ve consistently shown yourself to have a limited grasp on reality, and this just confirms that fact. You Republicans think that if you say a thing often enough, it becomes true. It doesn’t. And quoting Henry Morris, that old charlatan, as if his words were anything but the ramblings of a deluded huckster, demonstrates that you have no understanding of how science, logic, or indeed, truth, work.

I replied on March 20, 2013:

Archaeopteryx, your true character is on display for all to see. You accused me of taking a quote out of context but when I demonstrated that the quote I gave was in context and was originally given by an evolutionist to correct a creationist for only using 8 words of the quote then you still won’t back off. You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you know it. Be a gentleman and apologize. People that will respect you for that no matter if they are conservative or liberal. If I can’t get an apology out of you at least come on here and retract what you said.

The person using the username “Archaeopteryx responded on March 20, 2013:

Do you think people are blind?

I replied on March 20, 2013:

Archaeopteryx says, “Do you think people are blind?” I guess they can read how I was vindicated and you did not want to admit it.

That reminds me of what Darwin had to say about the possibility that the eye evolved. Dr. John Morris said:
Darwin was frustrated by the eye’s complexity, even though he knew only a fraction of what scientists have now discovered about the eye. In his book, Origin of Species, he included a section entitled, “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication,” in which he declared:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to 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.[6]
6.[6] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859 (Sixth Edition, 1872) (New York, Mentor Books, 1958), p. 133.

Archaeopteryx you are correct that Darwin continued to argue that the eye came about from evolution. I did not say that he left evolution because of this problem but he did see the weight of the problem.

Let me give you another example of a large problem for evolution and it is the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that energy is winding down and that matter left to itself tends toward chaos and randomness, not greater organization and complexity. Evolution demands exactly the opposite process, which is observed nowhere in nature.

Dr. George Wald of Harvard:

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” – Scientific American, August, 1954.
__________
I had two opportunities to correspond with George Wald and we actually discussed this quote. Did George Wald reject evolution because of this problem? No but he argued in the same article that given enough time this problem could be solved. THIS IS THE SAME ANSWER TO DARWIN WAS RELYING ON!!

Look at what Darwin is saying. He talks about “numerous gradations.” The definition of gradation is “A series of gradual, successive stages; a systematic progression. b. A degree or stage in such a progression.” Look at his answer to this huge problem and it is TIME. Over and over he uses the word “if” and Darwin has put his faith in time and chance and was hoping an answer to this huge problem would be found. He did not pretend to have an answer himself.

Actually I was in the process of including a larger portion of the Dr. John Morris article when I had something come up and I had to leave my computer. I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE QUOTE WAS GIVEN AND IT COULD LEAD SOMEONE TO BELIEVE THAT DARWIN GAVE UP ON THIS ISSUE AND THOUGHT THERE WAS NO ANSWER. I AM GLAD YOU CHALLENGED ME ON THAT AND GAVE ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAR IT UP. Here is the larger portion of what I wanted to cover below:

Darwin was frustrated by the eye’s complexity, even though he knew only a fraction of what scientists have now discovered about the eye. In his book, Origin of Species, he included a section entitled, “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication,” in which he declared:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to 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.[6]
Yet in the next several pages, he discussed how he thought it might have happened.

One may wonder why Darwin was forced to adopt and defend what he admitted was an absurd conclusion. His reasoning is made plain in the following quote. Keep in mind that Darwin was raised in a nominally religious home, but whose extended family had a well-established anti-Christian perspective. Darwin, himself, studied for the ministry, as was common in those days for individuals of a scholarly bent, but eventually rejected the Christian faith.

https://thedailyhatch.org/2013/03/21/charle…