Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Fake Messiah]

L-cones might be sensitive to the wavelength of light we perceive as red, but you would be incorrect to suppose these cells contain the qualia of redness.

Wood also doesn't contain phlogiston and yet it burns. That's why cone cells have pigments, at least bother to read a wiki article: "Cones are normally one of the three types, each with different pigment, namely: S-cones, M-cones and L-cones. Each cone is therefore sensitive to visible wavelengths of light that correspond to short-wavelength, medium-wavelength and longer-wavelength light."

I mean this is a shout out to every person that reads creationists books: If your only knowledge about evolution is from creationists books then DO NOT think that you know evolution or human anatomy or how to world works. You have to read science books in order to know what evolution really is.

At least within psychology, evolutionary theories offer the worst possible explanations for behavior;

Just the opposite. Evolution is really good in explaining the Bible, because we see how it was written with the primitive tribal mentality. I mean take the Decalogue as a perfect example, where the first three Commandments are inherently abject to anything not involving utter worship of the male leader, and the rest of his property. Killing, stealing, and wanting your neighbor's wife are thrown in practically as an afterthought.
We have an excellent indication of the man-made extent of the Ten Commandments, and flagrant signs of the evolution of the human animal and the "morality" that evolved with us.