Religion

The fact that we have eyes is proof that a consciousness was present, prior to our creation, which was aware of the existence of light. And while this truth does not confirm the existence of a God, doesn't it verify an intelligence older than our own?

Comments

No, our having eyes doesn't prove that at all. The theory of naturalselection provides an alternative explanation for how our visual systemdeveloped, an explanation that makes fewer assumptions than onethat appeals to a pre-existing "consciousness" (whose own existence andattributes don't require explaining?). For an entertaining expositionof this kind of explanation, you might read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

There are many simple creatures that are sensitive to light: Theywill move toward it or away from it. I believe there are some suchcreatures that are single-celled. In any event, such creatures are sosimple that it's hard to think of them as being "conscious" at all, andbiologists can tell a very convincing story of why these creaturesbehave as they do. The explanation rests upon the fact that there somechemicals that react to light: They are "photo-sensitive". There areother, slightly less simple creatures that have very primitive sorts of"eyes" that are simiilarly sensitive to light, but the reaction ofthese creatures to light is more complex, because these creatures haveprimitive nervous systems. And between those creatures and cats, birds,fish, and human beings are all kinds of other creatures with "eyes" ofvarying complexities. It is, perhaps, hard to imagine how exactlyorgans with the complexity of eyes evolved—for one thing, the time scale is immense—but one can see in thedifferences among the species some indication of how it might havehappened.

Ican imaginesomeone's saying that the existence of photo-sensitive chemicals"proves" the existence of a consciousness aware of the existence oflight, but surely there is nothing here that approaches "proof".Rather, someone who makes this kind of remark regards existence ofphoto-sensitive chemicals as a manifestation of God's creative genius,and I would not for a moment question that kind of expression of faith.I deeply respect it and often find myself moved in that direction: Everything is a manifestation of God's creative genius.But this kind of remark has to be understood as an expression of faith. To regard it as anything else is to trivialize it.

Read another response by Alexander George, Richard Heck

Read another response about Religion