Posted by blue on March 02, 1999 at 23:42:11:
In Reply to: William A. Dembski forgot to mention... posted by rpcman on March 02, 1999 at 14:30:20:
You have posted this link several times now, and seem quite pleased with it. Have you ever actually looked at the fact that it proves nothing? It makes two claims, and supports neither:
1) The human eye retains flaws only explainable through evolutionary theory. He cites "six muscles when three would do." So what? What is this supposed to prove?
2) All the various stages of the development of the human eye are observable in the animal kingdom. Is there any evidence that one stage ever followed from another? What evidence is there of any sequence?
Couple this with the fact that most scientists now agree that speciation occurred very rapidly, and Zindler's article becomes, as you call it, wishful thinking.
Stick with proven science when being scientific. Zindler's theories are no better than what the Creation scientists are publishing, to the embarrassment of us all.