Creationist non-answers are in a permanent state of hyperinflation, but the one in Men and Women See Differently…Literally, Brian Thomas’ first article after his own short hiatus, is quite a nice example. The paper being talked about is Sex & vision I: Spatio-temporal resolution (there was a part II, not cited in this article), which showed that “As with other sensory systems, there are marked sex differences in vision.” According to Brian evolution can’t explain this, but the bible can:
Why are men and women different in the way they perceive the world and process and communicate information? Could nature have selected these trait differences? If so, how would these differences contribute to survival? Abramov apparently has no answers to these questions. “The evolutionary driving force between these differences is less clear,” he said.
Brian Thomas returns with the Daily (pseudo)Science Update Perfect Molecule for Vision Shows Eyes Were Designed.
He begins by talking about how William Paley attributed the eye to the work of God, while Darwin attributed it to nature. He then says:
The retina contains tiny molecular machines that capture light and convert it into electrochemical signals. New research on how they do this emphasizes exactly why Paley was right.
It was only a few days ago now that I posted The Scars of Eye Surgery about Brian Thomas’ article Do Eyes Carry ‘Scars of Evolution’? Mr Thomas has decided that he needs to write on the same article again, apparently because there really isn’t much evolution/creationism related going on right now.* The result: Eye Evolution: Assumption, Not Science. In the circumstances, that describes much better his reading of the subject than the actual thing.
You may be aware that the Discovery Institute’s David Klingoffer just tried – and failed – to counter claims that the human spine couldn’t have been designed, because, if it had, said “designer” would’ve had to be rather bad at it. Today – in a post entitled Do Eyes Carry ‘Scars of Evolution’? – Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research tries to do the same, but for eyes.
Somebody has found some very nice early Cambrian compound eyes. “Very nice” in that the eyes seem to be quite good – “[t]hey have over 3000 lenses, making them more powerful than anything from that era, and probably belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in dim light,” the article says. The eyes were apparently similar to that of a shrimp, although the fossils are not attached to any creature that would tell us what it was. Continue reading