Design Eye

Intelligent Design and the Eye?

One argument if favour of Intelligent Design I often read is that certain features, such as the eye, are too complex to have arisen by natural means.

But such complex features are arising all the time - every new baby of a species that has eyes - by entirely natural means. If the ID argument is sound should we not posit that every new baby is intelligently designed? In which case would this refute current biological theories about eggs, DNA, gestation etc etc the "theory of reproduction"?

It seems to me either that:
1. Yes, you have to reject the "theory of reproduction" or
2.. Intelligent Design is compatible with the "theory of reproduction"

If "2" then you have to ask yourself what ID is actually saying and have to work pretty hard to get it to exclude evolution. Evolution may be wrong but it would not be ID that showed it to be so and another naturalist explanation of the changes in life forms would be immune to criticism by ID.

So IDers - which is it 1 or 2?

This is a little to one side of the argument, but I had a teacher at school who sincerely believed that God had created living creatures, and he used the example of the eye as a demonstration of how evolution was impossible. What amused me was, this teacher was extremely short-sighted and had to wear glasses with lenses at least a quarter-inch thick. So this perfect Creator of his didn't make such a good job of his eyes, did he? Or his brain if you ask me, but that's just a personal opinion.

For More Design Eye Info Click On The Blue Links Below