Thursday, 31 May 2018

Evolutionists Argue Bad Design In Life Because They Commit Slothful Induction Fallacy

Slothful induction occurs when someone doesn't focus on where the majority of the evidence is pointing, and instead they will find a reason to go with the opposite conclusion. "Lazy induction", basically means, they focus on one or two pieces of evidence but will ignore the overwhelming evidence.

This fallacy is what all arguments pertaining to "bad design" in life, are. They are all based on focusing on a gnat and swallowing a camel.

 Example 1, the pharynx/larynx. Forget the fact we can viably chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can viably drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, sing, sneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, where we can successfully change the tone of our voice and how audible it is. Forget this is all a neat package including aesthetics, and just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. (the evolutionist's complaint).

Example 2 is the eye.

- succesful light-penetration of nerve net through clever Muller cells that collect light from largest possible surface area of the retina.
- Successful refreshment of the photo receptors through the choroid.
- we can see in colour 
- we have the software to take the elemental colours and interpret all of the subtleties thereof when merged.
- The lens and eyeball is self-washing, unlike when you have spectacles.
- We can change the focus of our eye, and see in immense detail and clarity.
- We can adjust to the dark by the pupil opening. (humans are diurnal not nocturnal so this would be more advantageous for nocturnal animals so the design seems to be limited but a cat's pupil opens fully which is why you see their eyes glowing, which is the layer behind the retina.)
- The eye lid can stop dust from entering our eye and it doesn't get heavy because it is the correct weight for the muscles.
- We have the exactly correct types of fluid in the eye such as the rhodopsin. It is very sensitive to light and perfect for low light conditions. (correct materials)
- correction of aberration.
- Neat, and beautiful structure.

This is of course only what the camera eye in humans does succesffully and there are dozens and dozens more viable designs in the eye which enable sight, of which I am not qualified to give you the list of the likely 200 more well designed things.

Forget all that, and just focus on an irrelevant blind spot or the direction of the photo receptors, atheists would argue, but have you noticed this blind spot only presents itself as a problem with your eyes for the first time in your life, when an atheist invents an experiment and has you find the blind spot with paper and a pen. As for the photo receptors, anatomists of the eye have shown that they're actually the correct way around because of the problems this solves such as blood refreshment from the choroid.

So even when evolutionists score a couple of goals, they tend to not be genuine goals, the design of the human eye has no malfunction because of those complaints, and choking is actually not part of the pharynx anatomy, a mass wedged in the trachea is not a malfunction. But even if these were valid complaints can you see the problem? Look at the induction highlighted in blue, all of the facts are pointing to incredible intelligent design, not evolution.

Finally, if there was bad design, which there doesn't seem to be once you look past the superficial complaints by evolutionists, even so that would still require a designer, because as we can see from man-made products, sometimes people don't always come up with the most reliable designs for a device and there is a recall, but those devices still required a designer.

If evolution was true I would expect bad design to be rife, OR, be more prevalent as we go further back in the fossil record, where we would see evolution's trial and errors.

P.S. A logical test to see if the blind spot is truly an issue is the use of reductio ad absurdum. That is to say, if someone came up to you and said, "look, I will show you where the blind spot is on your car, sit in your car and I will show you, as another car passes you, where you can't see in the mirror." Well, the first thing you would say is this; "why would I need you to show me, most drivers are aware of this?" But have you noticed when an atheist tries to show you the blind spot in the human eye, you do need him/her to show you where it is? So then logically speaking we can deduce that the blind spot in the human eye can't really be much of a problem for the design if we need showing how it's a problem. That is actually proof that the complaint is superficial and inconsequential, for if it was a true problem we would not need it showing to us because it would have been problematic before they pointed it out.

No comments:

Post a Comment