Machine Design

There is something that popped into my brain around July of 2008 while sitting in a cafe in Thailand. The sun was setting and I wanted to take photos of people in the cafe using the natural light. The camera could not take a good photograph because the lighting was too low. I could see perfectly fine, the lighting was beautiful, but my very nice high tech digital camera could not capture the scene as well as my 48 year-old eyes could. That is when the question popped into my head. "How likely is it that after almost 200 years after invention of the camera, that the best scientists and engineers have not yet developed imaging technology that achieves the abilities of the human eye, but the human eye was developed and evolved to its current state of excellence by random undirected activity?"

The human eye can automatically white-balance, automatically compensate for changes in contrast and brightness, focuses imperceptibly fast between near and far objects, and only requires a lens of about 1/8 inch in diameter to do the job. No camera can do these things as well as the human eye.

Since that time I have been researching intelligent design and the general theory of evolution. I have just begun the research, so it is too early for me to state my final conclusion and the basis for it. But, at this point, I see serious problems with accepting the general theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin and development of life on earth. To define the term, the general theory of evolution proposes that the earth and all life forms on it were created by a combination of random, undirected activity and natural selection. The general theory of evolution does not require any intelligent life form to direct the process of development of the earth or all the life forms on it. Here are a couple more links relating to the topic:
From Discovery.org
From Answers.com





Just to prime the pump, I will toss out a couple observations:

Item 1:
For life to have started by accident, non-living matter would have to accidentally organize and transform itself to become a living organism. This process is defined as spontaneous generation. There is no evidence to support spontaneous generation. The fact that spontaneous generation is an unsupported hypothesis is taught in biology classes. No one has ever turned non-living matter into a living organism, so there is no reason to expect that spontaneous generation could happen by accident. But spontaneous generation is an absolute requirement for the general theory of evolution to be true.

Item 2:
Plants, animals and humans are examples of machines. By machine, I mean that elements are organized and programmed to peform a function. Living machines are much more sophisticated than non-living machines. Living machines can reproduce, adapt, change, and evolve. All machines require all elements to be assimilated and programmed precisely, or the machine does not function. It took tremendous thinking, planning, designing, coordination, fabricating and testing for us to just build three cranes for an offshore rig. The cranes are very simple machines. I firmly believe that there is not a sane person who has ever lived on this earth that would believe that, given enough time, those cranes would have come into existence without someone making it happen. There is no evidence that supports the hypothesis that random activity could ever result in disorganized elements becoming organized and programmed to perform a function. There are mountains of evidence demonstrating that intelligent life forms have created machines. We observe dams built by beavers, and hydroelectric dams built by humans. All observable evidence related to the creation of machines contradicts the general theory of evolution.

The photos are related to the topic, and related to another bit of evidence that causes trouble with the general theory of evolution. More on this later. Feel free to provide me with any data that contradicts what I have stated here. I want to be sure I have considered all the facts that I can.