I think you should re-read what I wrote before since you look as if you didn’t get my point. Or, to be more accurate, I feel that you got it but only partially. Good luck with your thinking and I hope that your mind and heart will be more open in the future to accept and admit that you were wrong.

There’s another subtle point, though, that since species which are able to adapt quickly (due for example to lots of variation in the population or a flexible genome) will survive, natural selection favours species which can evolve.

Of course a human eye cut in half will not work, but nobody says we evolved from half a human eye. Nobody claims that the human eye spontaneously came into existence, either. There are several forms of less sophisticated eyes. There are also forms of eyes that are better designs than human ones. You certainly can’t say that the human eye is of perfect design when we have an unnecessary blind spot! (The argument against that has often been that God gave us the blind spot to remind us that we do not see all—but then you’re taking both perfection and imperfection as proof of the same thing and completely invalidate your logic.)

We don’t have cat like senses because we didn’t evolve from cats. The selection pressures on our development just haven’t been such to require it. In fact we actually used to have much better vision (there are intricately detailed ancient pieces of art to demonstrate this) but since we domesticated animals and began agriculture, humans haven’t needed as good vision as they did when out hunting. As a result the average person today has very poor vision.

Likely all the criticisms of evolution Gunawan quoted could be applied equally well to Creationism. Refutation of one is not proof of the other, after all. But I do note one thing—Lord Kelvin’s mention of thermodynamics making evolution impossible is incorrect. It no more makes evolution impossible than growing from a baby to an adult.

When I first came across “Atlas of Creation”, it was not available for free. If this is the case now then I would read it, just as I read Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” in response to Dawkins’s book.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)

“Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.”
-Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics), University of Melbourne, Australia, 1980 Assembly Week address.

“The only contribution of thermodynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life.”
-Lord Kelvin, “On the Age of the Sun’s Heat,” Popular Lectures and Addresses (London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 415.

“The theory of evolution… presents only fallacious solutions to the problem of the nature of evolutionary transformations… perhaps we are now in a worse position than in 1859 because we have searched for one century and we have the impression that the different hypotheses are now exhausted. Presently, nature appears to be more steady, more firm and more refractory to changes than we thought… The world supposed by transformation is a phantasmagoric, surrealistic world… Personally I believe this phantasmagoria has existed before the calm and stable reality that we now observe in the nature.”
-Jean Rostand, 1972, quoted in J. Garrido: “Evolution and Molecular Biology,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 10 (1973): 168.

“To improve a living organism by random mutation is like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and bending one of its wheels or axis. Improving life by random mutations has the probability of zero.”
-Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1937).

“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”
-Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945).

“It’s such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we are all raised from an early age. Interestingly, I’ve read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are ’specialists in evolution’ and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it. On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science — real science — before moving into creation science.”
-Kouznetsov, in Dr. Carl Wieland, “Interview with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov,” Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, p. 36.

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”
-Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.

“…contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach.”
-Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 353, 354. (Note: Dr. Denton is neither a creationist nor a Christian.)