For some reason opponents of evolution seem to think that finding one aspect of it that isn't complete yet or doesn't fully describe observations invalidates the whole theory... that's simply not the case (in science anyway). A theory best describes observed data, and if new data invalidates one aspect of or the entire theory, a new one will take its place. So far nothing has been able to better describe the observations. (And don't say intelligent design, that's not science).
Darwin's full statement was:
Quote:
"The eye to
this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known
gradation my reason tells me I ought to conquer the odd shudder."
|
Sounds a bit different.
People also seem to think that science should always follow logic, when in fact science is full of things that defy "common" logic but are logical in their own context.
Just because Darwin didn't understand at the time he wrote that how the eye could have evolved doesn't mean it didn't and it doesn't mean he didn't believe his own theories. It just means he just saw it as something that needed to be overcome. And there's been tons of data on eyes that since then.
From reading a few reviews on Deton's book; seems his misunderstanding of the theory led him to quite a few of his conclusions. I haven't read it though.