This intelligent design/fine tuning argument is weak and unacceptable when compared to evolution. The former does not describe the agency through which the fine tuning/design is made through. There also isn't a satisfying reason
why the designer designed it. There is no mechanism to trace back the so-called designs to a "designer", and neither is there a mechanism to determine the identity of the designer. Lastly, the designer is always pushed out of the reach of science by being described as timeless and spaceless. Ergo, pseudo-scientific. MOVE ON!
WW1 and WW2 were fought for secular ideals. There's no denying that.
Hitler was not a religious man - he had some twisted views of religion. He obviously took on modern secular views of science of his time like some races were more evolved than others - hence the Germans were the most evolved and they were to control of all the lesser races - very "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" ideology morphed in political power there.
Twisted or not, it was still religious. If he was an atheist, why was the holocaust targeted only at specific religious groups like Jews and Jehovah's witnesses and not at Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants or any other religious groups? If he was an atheist, why was "God with us" inscribed along with the Nazi logos? Why didn't he remove it if he was an atheist?
Hitler was wrong in understanding "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" as prescriptive statements instead of descriptive. Doesn't mean that the Nazi movement was any less religious.
Both were plenty enough as it was.
The point being that anybody who thinks adhering to any given belief system, and who happens to be human -- and that said one belief system is so unique and special as to somehow enable one to overcome all the evils, misuses, abuses, and past horrors humans have committed in the name of belief systems -- is completely delusional.
Considering ones' ideology superior to another ideology does not necessarily imply that the believers will employ violent means to instill their ideology. Yes, some atheists think their world view is superior to a religious view. But how many atheists do you see behaving violently to make their point? Most of the atheists that annoy people these days write books, attend debates, make Youtube videos debunking religious concepts or post on forums like these. It's the religious nutjobs resorting to violence.
At least it seems like atheists learnt from Stalin and Pol Pot and refrain from resorting to violence. The same cannot be said about certain religions. Atheism wins here.
That's sensing or hearing.
We are talking about an eye, that needs light to see - we are talking about the human eye.
The eye is completely useless unless ALL of it's parts are present.
The eye and light area great example of design in nature, along with the infinite other examples.
FFS, educate yourself before making stupid statements.
Half an eye is better than no eye.
Also, the eye is useless without the brain. The latter is what makes sense of what the eye receives. Ever wondered why you "see" dreams even though your eyes are closed?