Why do so many creationists argue about the complexities of the eye, when the digestive tract is a much easier target? Just a question I was pondering.

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Why do so many creationists argue about the complexities of the eye, when the digestive tract is a much easier target? Just a question I was pondering.



One guess is that since more has been said about it, it is referred to more.

Because the eye is more pleasant to think about than the digestive system.

In bio we learned about the diferent worm order/families/classes (bio was three years ago) and they made a big deal about one of them having a two hole digetstive tract. The real diference between a mammal and a worm is the number of chambers in the digetsive system and the fact that a mammal has glands that produce enzymes and stuff. So it is not as hard to see a digestive system evolving as an eye.

Considering even the most gimped of eyes is useful to an organism, I believe it is harder to see the digestive tract evolving...especially considering each part by itself IS useless...benign, but useless.

Yeah, but a lot of people who use that analogy don't know about light-sensitive pigmentation and stuff like that. They think of the eye as something that works as a whole, fully developed organ, or as something that doesn't work at all.

But I agree with you overall, it would make a much more compelling argument.

Creationists don't like talking about things that are too similar to themselves...

things that are full of shit!

haw haw haw

(sorry)

That was pretty funny, but overall crude. I think creationists are interested in the truth on the matter...they just can't find it because they believe the Bible is the innerrant and literal word of God. IF blind devotion means full of shit, then I agree...but I don't think it does. Everybody devotes themselves to something, I just chose self-respect and honor over superstitions.