But the fact that an eye would accidently connect to the nervous system, given time, and then give sight to the organism, revealing a “3 dimensional world” to varing degrees, seems to me a bit to purposefull. Doesn’t the existence of a 3 dimemsional world that can be “seen”, and and random production of an eye that can “see”, suggest to you design? You see, the mere existence of an eye, presuposes that there is something to “see” and comprehend; and you would have a hard time convincing me that the existence of a 3 demesional reality that consists of things that can be “seen” is a coincidence that happens to bennifit the existence of an eye. I agree with the random development of an eye given chance, but the existence of an eye and its connection to other things in the world gives me the impression that an eye necessarily exists to “see”; which is actualised to varing degrees depending on the kind of organism. Its doesn’t seem to be by chance that the eyes connection to the nervous system and the eyes ability to recieve data into the nervous system, gives “sight”; so to me, this is Gods design in nature; however, the process by which that design is actualised, by which i mean the mechanics of nature, is blind. Natural selection and genetic drift is not enough to explain why such things should come about by chance in the first place.
Do you get what i mean.
I get what you mean, but your logic is flawed and so is your understanding of evolution.
Why is it, do you think, that we arn’t covered in sensory organs, that seem to be designed to pick up some kind of information that actually doesn’t exist? Why don’t with have some organ that we can study and work out what it was hypothetically disigned for, but without the existance of that thing? If we assume that evolution is accurace just for a moment, would you believe that the 3D world around us actually only appeared with the development of the eye? Do you think that the blind organisms linving in pre eye times, actually did not live in a 3D world? They did live in a 3D world, so the developing of an eye would give them an advantage over their blind peers. However, developing our hypothetical organ perfectly disigned to detect a phenomanon (such as sound or light) that actually does not exist, would be a complete waste of time and energy, becuase, no matter how well designed the organ, without the thing it was disigned to sence, it would be useless, and therefore would not be selected for.
So its no coninsidence that the eye developed and a 3D world (and more importantly light) for it to detect actually exists. Without the 3D world and light, there would be no eye. Not the other way round.
If we imagine for a second that the 3D world we live in exists just the same as now, but light does not you have a different sitution. No light means that the eye is useless and would not give us a picture of our surroundings. Of course if you think about cave dwelling or nocturnal animals you might get a good idea of what that would be like. And you also get an idea of what would be done about it. Some nocturnal animals have developed larger eyes to make up for the limited light. Some cave dwelling fish have lost their eyes. They just take up resources to grow and thus are wasteful of the fishes resources and are a selective disadvatage, meaning ultimatly they disappear.
Another animal to consider is the bat. It navigates and hunts by echolocation. It bounces soundwaves off objects to build up a ‘picture’ in much the same way we use light. Prehaps in a lightless world we would use echolocation to build a mental picture of our 3D world. Prehaps there would be little difference between this mental image and the one we get from assimilating the information provided by our eyes.
Now if you agree with the random development of an eye, given chance, surely you see how much more effcient it is if the chance changes to the eye or to any light senceing organ are put under the pressure of natural selection?
The one major mistake you seem to have made is that the eye randomly developed, and then randomly conected to the nervous system, and bang! suddenly some lucky organism went from perfect blindness to perfect 20:20 vision. It doesn’t work like that. Start small, with a patch of light sensitive cells. Think of small changes acumulated over a huge amount of time. Don’t think of the eye and optic nerve developing seperatly and then coming together. Think about the retina devolping from a particular folding of the brain. It all happens very slowly and with more time then we can even comprehend. Like I said before, a really good book that might make this clearer, is ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ by Richard Dawkins. He devotes a large chunk to solely talking about the eye, which would fully address your concern.
They have no more competence on such issues than most other people - unless those issues are implicated in what bishops are meant to do & say. Otherwise, they speak with no more authority than any layman in any subject. The same applies to all other political issues.