Rev. David Rives — Isaac Newton and the Eye

The day began on a jarring note — the blaring sirens and flashing lights of our Retard-o-tron™, and the blinking letters of the wall display that said WorldNetDaily (WND). We found our computer locked onto WND’s presentation of the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

WND’s headline is This necessity defies evolution. What necessity could that be? WND’s sub-title is: “David Rives quotes Isaac Newton in argument for a Creator.” Wow — Isaac Newton!

The video’s title is Advanced Optics: the Ultimate Necessity. It’s less than two minutes long, during which the rev tells us that the eye couldn’t possibly have evolved one step at a time — it had to be working all at once! Not only that, we’re told that the great Isaac Newton asked: Did blind chance know there was light and make our eyes to take advantage of it?

We looked around to verify that quote, and found it at Wikiquote here, as part of Newton’s essay on atheism. It’s real. They quote Newton like this:

Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to believe that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.

The rev quoted a different part of that same essay here: Rev. David Rives — Isaac Newton, Creationist.

This is powerful stuff, dear reader, and you don’t want to miss it, so click over to WND and be amazed!

As we usually do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Isaac Newton and the Eye

  1. docbill1351

    Eye see!

  2. Eye have seen the light. Isaac and his brother Fig have convinced me that I was wrong about the creationists. There are not just ignorant, insane, and stupid in some cases but they are way past the “Twilight Zone” and into a new realm of space-time.

  3. Was this before or after Sir Isaac poked his own eye with an icepick?

  4. And as one must yet again point out: Newton also squandered vast amounts of his time and intellect attempting to make a ‘Philosopher’s Stone’ in order to transmute ‘base’ metals to gold and achieve immortality.

    Win some, lose some…

  5. As Mega points out, he was not all that great, he did lots of stuff that was silly, but he also did lots of great stuff, but he was still just a guy with flaws like anyone else, and like anyone else his opinions are just that.
    ‘ the great Isaac Newton asked: Did blind chance know there was light and make our eyes to take advantage of it?’
    Was a very good question but he did not have the resources to get a good answer so ‘gawd did it’. And the answer is NO! it was NOT blind chance nor was it your incompetent sky-fairy.

  6. Wow, that’s amazing Issac Newton disproved Evolution almost a hundred years before it was even first purposed. You know, if I was a gullible idiot, I might actually believe that to, too bad for David Rives I’m not.

  7. So, Rev Rives, was Newton correct when he denied the Trinity?

  8. (Supposed to be in Desi Arnaz code… whoops!)

  9. And I thought micro/macro evolution was already an old and tired argument to continue to be hearing.

  10. Ahem. I’m just going to leave this here:

    “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

    – Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species

  11. Ceteris Paribus

    You evilutionists are telling “just so” stories about the origin of the eye.

    We creationists know better than that. Or to paraphrase what our hero William Jennings Bryan said about the tall tale scientists now use to describe way the eye slowly evolved over millions of years of time;

    “And, can you believe it!? The scientists tell us that a little sun-warmed patch of pigment on the head of some worm gradually evolved into an eye, not just once, but twice!

  12. Obviously many marvellous coincidences had to occur for functional eyes to arise. People are always talking about the lens, the nerves etc. Why do we never hear about the fact that there are two holes in the skull EXACTLY where the eyes are? Now that can’t possibly be a coincidence, can it? I’m eagerly awaiting the David Rives video where he finally demolishes evolution by pointing out that the loving, all-wise Creator remembered to put two holes in exactly the right place! Of course, random evolution would very likely have sealed the eyes inside the cranium with no holes for them to look out through! Take that, Darwin! That was pretty much the final nail in evolution’s coffin, see? (Lame semi-pun intended by the final “see”.)

  13. Last night, just for fun, I flipped a coin 10 times and recorded the results to be as follows:

    H H T H T T T H T H

    The probability of that SPECIFIC result occuring is 1 in 1024. Clearly that I was singled out for such a statistically unlikely result shows that I am one of God’s special creations.

  14. And I thought I was the only one to be converted by the Right Reverend Rives! I can’t wait until he tells us why my eyes (and both kids’) are blue; why we blink; the creator’s, I mean intelligent designer’s, I mean creator’s reasoning for eyelashes and eyebrows; and why God hates Stevie Wonder. On the edge of my seat, here, David. The edge!

  15. Think about these things creationists-
    1)Why would an ID give eyes to some fish who never see light,and not give eyes to some cave dwelling salamanders who rarely,but occasionaly do.
    2)Why are the wonderfully elegant and complex things in nature evidence of an ID,and the ridiculously nonsensical,unnecessary things not evidence of an ID(idiot designer)?
    3)How can you justify continuing to pick out pieces of quotes to fit whatever context you want,and also insist that the creation story is both literal and contextual,depending on the conversation you are having?
    4)If the eye is an actual gift from an ID,why aren’t ours better equipped than many “lesser” animals whose vision far exceeds ours,in many ways.
    Thanks for this forum Sensh….peace.

  16. I have it on reasonable authority that before The Fall, Adam and Eve could see on the infra-red and ultraviolet wavelengths. I could probably come up with an equally bogus rationale to explain any other quirk in animal evolution.