Irreducible Complexity.

[Jason Jarred]

Aarrrrgghh! I can't believe I'm say this but... Leo that's a false dichotomy in my view and not entirely correctl. Let's be completely objective and distance ourselves from the usual theist/atheist struggles. If I had to assess the situation I would start with the following possibilities.

Either:
1) God exists (and created everything, assumedly)
2) God does not exist

If number 1 is true, then the following possibilities might folllow:

1) God did not know how to design the eye better
2) God knew how to design the eye better, but had a reason for not doing so

I hate this arguement as much as any other atheist, but I think you have to aknowledge that the possibility exists even if it is incredibly remote.
Let's pretend God exists, that we've found evidence that proves his existence and he created all of nature. I'm certain that those of us who were atheists would not discontinue our scientific approach, we would accept that yes - he seems to exist, now let us examine *why* he has done such a bad job. But that then is getting into the realm of assessing God's character, judgement and personality isn't it? And how could we possibly do that unless we spoke to him? Unless we were able to assess and test him *directly*?

In short, if God existed the possibility exists that he would deliberately design things in a less than optimal manner for reasons that only he would know. However it's silly to proceed down that path before determining and proving his existence, which hasn't been achieved yet.

To warp up my thoughts... the burden of proof still lies on theists to prove the existence of God before anything can be attributed to him.