reasonable answers

Earlier this week I visited an opthalmologist for a long overdue eye exam. Among other things, the doctor took an Optomap of my eye—basically a laser image of my retina—to see if there was anything to watch out for back there. She matter-of-factly gave me a 50/50 chance of suffering a retinal detachment in the future… something for me to look forward to.

But this visit, together with some questions on optics and vision asked by my AP Physics students last week, reminded me of just how incredibly intricate our vision is, from the way the placement of our eyeballs gives us stereoscopic vision, to the manner in which our brain interprets and reverses the images so that we see right side up.

An “Inverted” Retina

But in contrast to our intuitive recognition of its wonders, the human eye is often cited as an example of something that is sub-optimally designed, or so flawed that it could not have possibly been designed by an intelligent designer. Now, I know that my own eyes are certainly not optimal—just take a look at how thick my glasses are—but the argument is that even the most perfectly seeing eye is flawed, due to a critical “mistake” in the design of the human eye that can only be explained by an unintelligent evolutionary process rather than an intelligent designer.

One of my wittier students put this as her answer (in lieu of an actual solution) to a problem on a recent Physics test on Newton’s Laws:

"Help me, Mr. Yeh-Kenobi! You are my only hope!”

My immediate response,

“Use the Force (=mass times acceleration), Beth!”

Her table got a kick out of that when I handed back the test.

Two weeks ago, Campus Crusade for Christ at Indiana University sponsored a debate on the question, “Is Intelligent Design Viable?” The audio for the debate is available for download from the Apologetics 315 blog.

The two participants were Francisco J. Ayala and William Lane Craig, and the debate was moderated by Bradley Monton, an atheist philosopher of science who argues that ID is deserving of serious consideration as a scientific theory (even though he personally believes that it is false). Monton recently published a book called Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design.

Francisco Ayala is Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology as well as Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science at UCI, and author of a number of books such as Darwin and Intelligent Design, Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, and the Handbook of Evolution: The Evolution of Living Systems, in addition to nearly a thousand publications on evolutionary biology.

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, and a noted philosopher, theologian, and Christian apologist. He is respected among theists and atheists alike as one of the strongest defenders of the Christian faith, and he has debated a number of people in defense of the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some of his exceptional debate opponents include Anthony Flew, Peter Atkins, and recently a very prominent debate with Christopher Hitchens at Biola University on the existence of God. His website, Reasonable Faith, is a great resource for Christian apologetics and it is also a recommended visit for those who have serious questions or doubts about Christianity. See the debate’s Participant Information page for more on the accomplishments of both Ayala and Craig.

What was very interesting to me was that this is the first time that Craig is debating specifically on the topic of intelligent design in biology, and I was curious to hear how he would fare against Ayala, who has written numerous books and articles on biological evolution and and one specifically against intelligent design.

An update to the previous post on the intelligent prank Harvey Mudd students pulled on the Victoria’s Secret Pink Collegiate Collection competition. Here are the current standings (click on the image to view the full size screen cap):

HMC is still in the lead, of course, though now with over 2 million votes. But now the first letter of the top 23 schools spells out something that has even broader appeal to all Mudders (I was a Southie myself for part of my time at Mudd, and remember being blasted awake more than once by West Dorm antics). They also included a friendly shout-out to their little rival in Pasadena.

So can natural selection do this? But of course! Since intelligence carries significant fitness value, survival of the fittest dictates that it is only natural that the most intelligent will rise to the top.

Thanks to JF (who I’m going to assume is a fellow Mudder) for bringing this to my attention and for providing the up to date screencap.