Whole Brain Catalog

The Mental Environment

Where our fate as humans will be decided.

Photo by Christophe Kutner, Party Monster 1, 2009

This article is available in:

Your mind, a clear mountain stream running burbling through the rocks. Until Pepsi stands up, unzips its billion-dollar ad budget, and takes a leak, staining it forever brown. Your brain, a verdant old-growth forest, until it dies the death of a thousand swooshes. Your soul, filled with the crystal fresh air of early morning, until Philip Morris blows in a cloud of its seductive smoke.

No. Mental environmentalism may be the most important notion of this new century, but the only way to start this discussion is by admitting the analogy is not exact. Whatever the mental environment is, it’s not a pristine wilderness untrammeled by people. It’s not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the Antarctic biosphere. No, the mental environment has been shaped by culture as long as we’ve been, well, human.

The mind is, among other things, a tool for collecting, storing, weighing images and ideas. Perhaps earlier in our primate evolution our brains worked differently, but for millions of years we have been shaping our own minds and the minds of those around us. Our mental environment is not the Yosemite of John Muir or Ansel Adams. It has always been more like Central Park, a landscaped reflection of human notions. Every generation, every community, has had a mental environment. The culture. The zeitgeist. It is that almost invisible fog of assumptions in which we live our lives, the set of images and ideas we barely notice because they are so common as to be both banal and overwhelming.

What’s more, this is not the first moment that our mental environment has been polluted. We’ve seen all kinds of toxins poured into the infostream. Check out a Leni Riefenstahl movie if you want to see what I mean. Try to imagine life during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. The state, the church have time and again become mentally oppressive until eventually a resistance emerged — a resistance that, from Martin Luther to Vaclav Havel, said at least in part: “We want our minds back.” Not all the way back: We’ve never owned our minds entirely. But more of our minds, in better shape.

Which brings us to the present moment, the moment that we have to deal with, the moment out of which we have to stage our singular resistance. The mental environment is under siege from a particularly difficult variety of pollution. To understand it, consider an analogy from the physical world, where carbon dioxide is threatening to warm the planet disastrously. Taken in small doses, carbon dioxide is not dangerous, just as the occasional commercial or billboard is hardly a problem. In fact, CO2 in small quantities isn’t anywhere near as dangerous as most chemicals, just as Ronald McDonald couldn’t do the same kind of damage as, say, Joseph Goebbels. But every act of a modern life releases carbon into the atmosphere. Spewed from the rear ends of a billion cars and factories and furnaces, this constant pollution now seems likely to raise global temperatures five degrees in this century, altering everything from rainfall to ice-melt to wind speed. Similarly, the modern consumer economy sends up an almost infinite blitz of information and enticement, till the air is so thick with it that every feature of our society is changed. In neither case is it pollution in the usual sense, easily cleaned with a smokestack filter or combated with a more wholesome image. Instead, it’s a volume problem. In the case of the so-called information society, it may be the largest psychological experiment in history.

Here’s another way of saying it: We are the first few generations to receive most of our sense of the world mediated rather than direct, to have it arrive through one screen or another instead of from contact with other human beings or with nature.

If the mental environment we live in has a single distinctive feature, the way that oxygen defines our atmosphere, it is self-absorption. That’s what a mental environment gone awry has produced; that is the toxic outcome of our era’s unique pollution. Some years ago, working on a book, I watched every word and image that came across the largest cable system in the world in a 24-hour period — more than 2,000 hours of ads and infomercials, music videos and sitcoms. If you boiled this stew down to its basic ingredient, this is what you found, repeated ad infinitum: You are the most important thing on Earth, the heaviest object in the universe. From the fawning flattery of the programming to the mind-messing nastiness of the commercials, it continually posited a world of extreme individualism. Even more than, say, violence, that’s the message that flows out the coaxial cable. Characters on television may turn violent to get what they want now, but it’s the what-they-want-now that lies nearer the heart of the problem.

This hyperindividualism is a relatively new phenomenon in our lives. For most of human history, people have put something else near the center — the tribe, the gods, the natural world. But a consumer society can’t tolerate that, because having something else at the center complicates consumption.

This appeal to us as individual fragments grows ever more powerful and precise. Most of the new technologies premise their appeal (especially to advertisers) on their ability to target with frightening accuracy our locations and our psyches.

So far, the assaults on our mental environment have been mainly from the outside, but we are seeing sorties on the inside too. Already we see psychopharmacology rampant, the ranks of people who need such medicine swelled by a creeping malaise: a gradual redefinition of our foibles, of our tiny personal tragedies. There are pills for the camera-shy, for “shopper’s remorse,” for the stresses of personal bankruptcy — it’s getting crowded in the collective bummer tent. Before long, genetic engineers may well be able to literally tweak the brains of our children, offering them “extra intelligence” or perhaps docility, upgraded memory at the price of downgraded meaning. Improved individuals, at the price of whatever individuality should mean in its sweetest sense.

But. The human mind and heart are not dead yet; indeed there are signs that we’ve reached the moment of resistance, that a million Vaclav Havels, albeit often tongue-tied and unsure precisely of their mission, are rising from different corners to challenge this assault. If you ask me what I remember from the WTO battle in Seattle, it is not the sting of rubber bullets or the choke of gas; it is a jaunty balloon rising above the melee with this message painted on its side: “Wake Up Muggles.” If you’ve read Harry Potter, then you know: Muggles are all of us, living in a world of magic but unable to see it, focused as we are on television and mall. But we are waking, in sufficient numbers to ensure there will be the same kind of fight for the mental environment as there has been for the physical one. And, of course, the fights will overlap.

Mental environmentalists may well lose, just like their colleagues working in the physical world. Global warming may be too much to overcome, and so may genetic engineering or push media or the simple warm-bath skill of those designers and marketers who would sap our lives for their own advancement. But the fight itself holds tremendous possibility. The liberation from self-absorption comes most of all in the battle to help others and in the vision of a world that makes sense to our minds, a world where no single idea (“buy”) holds sway.

Forget monoculture, in our fields or in our heads; imagine instead a thousand different communities, adapted to the physical places they inhabit, sharing insight and difference, appreciating small scale and large heart. Where no musician sells 10 million copies, but 10 million musicians sing each night. Where we are freed from consumer identity and idolatry to be much more ourselves. Where we have our heads back.

Bill McKibben is the author of The End of Nature, The Age of Missing Information, and is the pioneer behind the 350.org movement. His latest book is Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet.

This essay was reprinted from Adbusters #38.

58 comments on the article “The Mental Environment”

Displaying 21 - 30 of 58

Page 3 of 6

Cronos

Religion is the primitive intellectual response to the discovery of physics, and it belongs back in the past where it was inevitably used to further political domination and justify war and genocide. Please take your supernatural beings and superstitious groupthink gulag back to whatever hellhole is currently ruled by this dangerous bullshit. Y'all can argue about angels on the head of a pin as you cut off the hands of those you disagree with. Religious moderates are the handmaidens and enablers of these zealots, apologising and rationalising the intellectual and moral weakness that demands obedience uber alles. Perhaps we could also arrange a program to transport the pinhead libertarians who decry government as a pox on freedom to Somalia, where the Free Market is already in unfettered control.
Go ahead and live the dream, assholes. Just leave me to think for myself.

Cronos

Religion is the primitive intellectual response to the discovery of physics, and it belongs back in the past where it was inevitably used to further political domination and justify war and genocide. Please take your supernatural beings and superstitious groupthink gulag back to whatever hellhole is currently ruled by this dangerous bullshit. Y'all can argue about angels on the head of a pin as you cut off the hands of those you disagree with. Religious moderates are the handmaidens and enablers of these zealots, apologising and rationalising the intellectual and moral weakness that demands obedience uber alles. Perhaps we could also arrange a program to transport the pinhead libertarians who decry government as a pox on freedom to Somalia, where the Free Market is already in unfettered control.
Go ahead and live the dream, assholes. Just leave me to think for myself.

Annas I. Wibowo

Islam embraces saintific progress and technological advancements

If one studies Islamic history one can see how during the Islamic Khilafah the Muslim world was at the forefront of science, technology and progress.

Read :

http://khilafat.org/newPages/Books/Resources/ScienceAndIslam.pdf

Annas I. Wibowo

Islam embraces saintific progress and technological advancements

If one studies Islamic history one can see how during the Islamic Khilafah the Muslim world was at the forefront of science, technology and progress.

Read :

http://khilafat.org/newPages/Books/Resources/ScienceAndIslam.pdf

Annas I. Wibowo

http://95.211.11.218/download/06/06/cb2678c17cfdaf9a0a973b59d5663364/signs_of_god_design_in_nature.zip

The unprecedented style and the superior wisdom inherent in the Qur’an is conclusive evidence confirming that it is the Word of God. Apart from this, there are a number of miracles verifying its Divine nature, one of them being that, 1,400 years ago, it declared a number of scientific facts that have only been established thanks to the technological breakthroughs of the 20th century. In this book, in addition to the scientific miracles of the Qur’an, you will also find messages regarding history and mathematics.
http://95.211.11.218/download/06/06/cdbafba10cfd8e801e3b21c6ff0d536b/miracles_of_the_quran.zip

The Design in Nature

Let us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately recall the mark in the middle. This mark is designed to help those who take a half dose. Every product that we see around us, even if not as simple as the aspirin, is of a certain design, from the vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.

Design, in brief, means a harmonious assembling of various parts in an orderly form designed for a common goal. Going by this definition, one has no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo. In realisation of this goal, various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in a factory.

However, what about living creatures? Can a bird and the mechanics of its flight be a design as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did in the example of the car. The goal, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollow, light-weight bones and the strong breast muscles that move these bones are utilised together with feathers capable of suspension in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and the metabolism is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy. It is obvious that the bird is a product of a certain design.

If we leave aside the bird and examine other forms of life, we encounter the same truth. In every creature, there are examples of extremely well-conceived design. If we continue further on this quest, we discover that we ourselves are also a part of this design. Your hands that hold these pages are functional as no robot hands could ever be. Your eyes that read these lines are making vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot achieve.

Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in nature, including us, are of a design. This, in turn, shows the existence of a Creator, Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the entire creation and holds absolute power and wisdom.

However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was formed in the middle of the 19th century. The theory set forth in Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species asserts that all creatures evolved by chains of coincidences and mutated from one another.

According to the fundamental premise of this theory, all life forms go through minute random changes. If these random changes improve a life form, then it gains an advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.

This scenario has been passed around for 140 years as if it is very scientific and convincing. When scrutinised under a larger microscope and when compared against the examples of the design in creatures, Darwin's theory paints a very different picture, i.e. Darwinism's explanation of life is nothing more than a self-contradictory vicious circle.

Let us first focus on the random changes. Darwin could not provide a comprehensive definition of this concept due to lack of knowledge of genetics in his time. The evolutionists who followed him suggested the concept of "mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocations or shifts of genes in living things. Most importantly, there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information. Nearly all the known cases of mutations disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect. Therefore, to think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting at a crowd of people hoping that the injuries will result in healthier improved individuals. This is clearly nonsense.

As importantly, and contrary to all the scientific data, even if one assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being's condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The reason for this is a concept called "irreducible complexity." The implication of this concept is that the majority of systems and organs in living things function as a result of various independent parts working together, the elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.

For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever. In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components - such as external auditory canal, tympanic membrane, bones in the middle ear, that is, the hammer, anvil and stirrup, fluid-filled cochlea, hearing receptors or hair cells, the cilia which help these cells to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves that connect to the brain and hearing centre in the brain - have to work together without exception. The system could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.

Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin also worried about these very prospects. He wrote in On The Origin of Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.1

Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science. However the science of the 20th century did study nature in minute details and proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible complexity. Therefore, Darwin's theory has "absolutely" collapsed just as he feared.

In this book, we are going to explore various examples of systems in living beings that demolish Darwin's theory. These mechanisms will be found anywhere from in the wings of a bird to inside a bat's skull. As we examine these examples we will not only see the immense error Darwinism makes but also witness the greatness of the wisdom with which these systems were created.

Hence, we will see the indisputable evidence of Allah's flawless creation. Likewise, the power and artistry of Allah to create flawlessly is expressed in a surah of the Qur'an as follows:

>>> "He is Allah - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise." (Surat al-Hashr: 24)

An Example of Irreducible Complexity: The Eye of the Lobster

There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.

However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection rather than that of refraction.

The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture on the next page, these squares are positioned most precisely.

The eye of a lobster shows a remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly square, so it "looks like perfect graph paper."2

These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.

Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.3

The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.

It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features - such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer at the back - were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear that the lobster eye was created as a miraculous system.

One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.

The other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye structure", which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.

The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures within the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally simpler design.

However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.

It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created separately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous. Just like the rest of the miracles of creation, the lobster's eye structure is an open testimony to the Creator's boundless power to create flawlessly. This is nothing but a manifestation of Allah's endless knowledge, wisdom and might. We can encounter such miracles as these regardless of what we examine in the world of creation.

Annas I. Wibowo

http://95.211.11.218/download/06/06/cb2678c17cfdaf9a0a973b59d5663364/signs_of_god_design_in_nature.zip

The unprecedented style and the superior wisdom inherent in the Qur’an is conclusive evidence confirming that it is the Word of God. Apart from this, there are a number of miracles verifying its Divine nature, one of them being that, 1,400 years ago, it declared a number of scientific facts that have only been established thanks to the technological breakthroughs of the 20th century. In this book, in addition to the scientific miracles of the Qur’an, you will also find messages regarding history and mathematics.
http://95.211.11.218/download/06/06/cdbafba10cfd8e801e3b21c6ff0d536b/miracles_of_the_quran.zip

The Design in Nature

Let us for a moment think of an aspirin; you will immediately recall the mark in the middle. This mark is designed to help those who take a half dose. Every product that we see around us, even if not as simple as the aspirin, is of a certain design, from the vehicles we use to go to work, to TV remote controls.

Design, in brief, means a harmonious assembling of various parts in an orderly form designed for a common goal. Going by this definition, one has no difficulty in guessing that a car is a design. This is because there is a certain goal, which is to transport people and cargo. In realisation of this goal, various parts such as the engine, tires and body are planned and assembled in a factory.

However, what about living creatures? Can a bird and the mechanics of its flight be a design as well? Before giving an answer, let us repeat the evaluation we did in the example of the car. The goal, in this case, is to fly. For this purpose, hollow, light-weight bones and the strong breast muscles that move these bones are utilised together with feathers capable of suspension in the air. Wings are formed aerodynamically, and the metabolism is in tune with the bird's need for high levels of energy. It is obvious that the bird is a product of a certain design.

If we leave aside the bird and examine other forms of life, we encounter the same truth. In every creature, there are examples of extremely well-conceived design. If we continue further on this quest, we discover that we ourselves are also a part of this design. Your hands that hold these pages are functional as no robot hands could ever be. Your eyes that read these lines are making vision possible with such focus that the best camera on earth simply cannot achieve.

Hence one arrives at this important conclusion; all creatures in nature, including us, are of a design. This, in turn, shows the existence of a Creator, Who designs all creatures at will, sustains the entire creation and holds absolute power and wisdom.

However, this truth is rejected by the theory of evolution that was formed in the middle of the 19th century. The theory set forth in Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species asserts that all creatures evolved by chains of coincidences and mutated from one another.

According to the fundamental premise of this theory, all life forms go through minute random changes. If these random changes improve a life form, then it gains an advantage over the others, which in turn is carried onto following generations.

This scenario has been passed around for 140 years as if it is very scientific and convincing. When scrutinised under a larger microscope and when compared against the examples of the design in creatures, Darwin's theory paints a very different picture, i.e. Darwinism's explanation of life is nothing more than a self-contradictory vicious circle.

Let us first focus on the random changes. Darwin could not provide a comprehensive definition of this concept due to lack of knowledge of genetics in his time. The evolutionists who followed him suggested the concept of "mutation". Mutation is arbitrary disconnections, dislocations or shifts of genes in living things. Most importantly, there is not one single mutation in history that has been shown to improve the condition of a creature's genetic information. Nearly all the known cases of mutations disable or harm these creatures and the rest are neutral in effect. Therefore, to think that a creature can improve through mutation is the same as shooting at a crowd of people hoping that the injuries will result in healthier improved individuals. This is clearly nonsense.

As importantly, and contrary to all the scientific data, even if one assumes that a certain mutation could actually improve a being's condition, Darwinism still cannot be delivered from inevitable collapse. The reason for this is a concept called "irreducible complexity." The implication of this concept is that the majority of systems and organs in living things function as a result of various independent parts working together, the elimination or disabling of even one of which would be enough to disable the entire system or organ.

For example, an ear perceives sounds only through a sequence of smaller organs. Take out or deform one of these, e.g. one of the bones of the middle ear, and there would be no hearing whatsoever. In order for an ear to perceive, a variety of components - such as external auditory canal, tympanic membrane, bones in the middle ear, that is, the hammer, anvil and stirrup, fluid-filled cochlea, hearing receptors or hair cells, the cilia which help these cells to sense the vibrations, the net of nerves that connect to the brain and hearing centre in the brain - have to work together without exception. The system could not have developed in segments because none of the segments could possibly function alone.

Hence, the concept of irreducible complexity demolishes the theory of evolution at its foundations. Interestingly, Darwin also worried about these very prospects. He wrote in On The Origin of Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.1

Darwin could not, or might not have wanted to, find such an organ at the premature levels of 19th century science. However the science of the 20th century did study nature in minute details and proved that the majority of living structures embody irreducible complexity. Therefore, Darwin's theory has "absolutely" collapsed just as he feared.

In this book, we are going to explore various examples of systems in living beings that demolish Darwin's theory. These mechanisms will be found anywhere from in the wings of a bird to inside a bat's skull. As we examine these examples we will not only see the immense error Darwinism makes but also witness the greatness of the wisdom with which these systems were created.

Hence, we will see the indisputable evidence of Allah's flawless creation. Likewise, the power and artistry of Allah to create flawlessly is expressed in a surah of the Qur'an as follows:

>>> "He is Allah - the Creator, the Maker, the Giver of Form. To Him belong the Most Beautiful Names. Everything in the heavens and earth glorifies Him. He is the Almighty, the All-Wise." (Surat al-Hashr: 24)

An Example of Irreducible Complexity: The Eye of the Lobster

There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.

However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection rather than that of refraction.

The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture on the next page, these squares are positioned most precisely.

The eye of a lobster shows a remarkable geometry not found elsewhere in nature - it has tiny facets that are perfectly square, so it "looks like perfect graph paper."2

These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.

Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.3

The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments so that they all focus the light at a single point.

It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features - such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer at the back - were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear that the lobster eye was created as a miraculous system.

One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye was one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and the shrimp.

The other members of the crustacea class display the "refracting type eye structure", which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.

The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. On the contrary, only one group of the crustaceans, namely the long-bodied decapods, have reflecting eyes. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures within the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that reflecting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally simpler design.

However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.

It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created separately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "coincidence" is simply ludicrous. Just like the rest of the miracles of creation, the lobster's eye structure is an open testimony to the Creator's boundless power to create flawlessly. This is nothing but a manifestation of Allah's endless knowledge, wisdom and might. We can encounter such miracles as these regardless of what we examine in the world of creation.

Nicholas

Oddly enough, I have actually heard good things about Somalia, but I can't confirm them because I can't afford to see for myself.

Nicholas

Oddly enough, I have actually heard good things about Somalia, but I can't confirm them because I can't afford to see for myself.

Ashley

We are damaged goods. We are people so entrenched in a culture where there exists a dichotomy between power and subjugation, win and lose, up and down, that we cannot imagine a world that is nonlinear. We are unsure even of how to frame our "battle." We just know our minds have been stolen. Call it a gut feeling, or an instinct.

As damaged goods, we are not the best equipped in the first place to decide precisely how to pierce the hegemonic acceptance of war waging.

In this vein, we must learn to merely exist. All we have control over is our inner space. Knowing that in itself is progress.

Ashley

We are damaged goods. We are people so entrenched in a culture where there exists a dichotomy between power and subjugation, win and lose, up and down, that we cannot imagine a world that is nonlinear. We are unsure even of how to frame our "battle." We just know our minds have been stolen. Call it a gut feeling, or an instinct.

As damaged goods, we are not the best equipped in the first place to decide precisely how to pierce the hegemonic acceptance of war waging.

In this vein, we must learn to merely exist. All we have control over is our inner space. Knowing that in itself is progress.

Pages

Add a new comment

Comments are closed.