He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow:
but a prating fool shall fall.
The miraculous nature of eyes is one of the most profound examples of the complicated nature of creation. Explaining how something as complex and amazing as the human eye could happen by chance is an example of absurdity and futility. The irreducible complexity of just one type of eye alone is evidence that they were designed, however, it is not even that simple for the evolutionist. They must explain how the eye allegedly evolved on multiple occasions, quite independently. There are six basic types of eyes and they are totally different from each other, which include the human and animal eye, the compound eye of insects, the macruran crustacean eye, the scallop eye, the octopus eye, and the eye of the allegedly extinct trilobite. Incredibly, evolutionists actually do propose that each of these eyes evolved separately and are unrelated to each other.1 This view is even in contradiction to Darwin’s own words on the matter:
“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 degree.”2
Darwin’s confession concerning the eye becomes even more dramatic when viewed through the lens of modern science.
We now know the eye to be a to be a far more sophisticated instrument than it appeared a hundred years ago. Electro-physiological studies have recently revealed very intricate connections among the nerve cells of the retina, which enable the eye to carry out many types of preliminary data processing of visual information before transmitting it in binary form to the brain. The cleverness of these mechanisms has again been underlined by their close analogy to the sorts of image intensification and clarification processes carried out today by computers, such as those used by NASA, on images transmitted from space. Today it would be more accurate to think of a television camera if we are looking for an analogy to the eye.3
The trilobite is considered to be one of the earliest animals on earth by evolutionists and they are found at the very lowest fossil level. However, they have the most sophisticated eye lenses that have ever existed. Trilobite eyes were made up of as many as dozens of tubes with inorganic crystalline lenses (the number varies with difference types of trilobites). It has been suggested that these eyes not only made up for distortions caused by water, but that they were enabled to see in stereovision. If creatures are evolving, why does the earliest known fossilized creature have an eye that is more complicated than any living creature? Scientists have been awed by the efficiency and complexity of trilobite eyes, but somehow they lack enough smarts to start questioning the evolutionary theories that are so thoroughly dashed to pieces by that knowledge.
One of the most ludicrous arguments that I have yet to hear from pro-evolutionist debaters, including Eugenie Scott and Dawkins, concerns the alleged imperfection of the eye. When an image is made in the eye it is transmitted to the brain upside down and the brain turns in right-side up in nanoseconds. None of these intellectually facile debaters has ever explained how such an incredibly fast and complex process could occur without being designed, and why it would be a better design if the image was sent to the brain right-side up. I have never heard of anyone who actually saw upside down, so it obviously works very well, and the inability of a dimwitted college professor to comprehend the process does not make the process inefficient, only the thinking process of that professor is inefficient.
One of the silliest arguments presented against Kent Hovind in debate concerned the octopus eye. A scoffer suggested that God was inefficient since the octopus has an allegedly superior eye, since its focusing mechanisms were much simpler and more efficient by letting in more light. Hovind pointed out that octopuses were designed to see underwater, while we were designed to see on land. If our eyes were like the octopuses, we would soon go blind due to the excess light.4 I pointed out a similar issue with deer and their ability to see UV light, an ability that we, fortunately for our sight, lack.
The fact that we and animals can see in so many different ways and in so many different environments demolishes the evolutionist religious viewpoint, yet they willingly choose ignorance.
Ezekiel 12:2: Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.
Your servant in Christ,
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of
KJV equivalent Bibles in all the languages of the world.