Evolution of the Eye
Worldview Stories in Science Class
A student recently emailed with the following question:
"Isn't it true that Darwin admitted before he died that he
couldn't explain the complexity of the human eye?"
Here is my answer:
Darwin did say that the eye gave him a problem based on his theory of
gradual evolution, but he did not say it at the end of his life. He
wrote it in his book, On the Origin of Species, published in
1859. Darwin mentioned the eye by way of illustrating how an organ this
complex "could" have evolved. But then, instead of providing a
scientific explanation, showing actual evidence from the fossil record
for example, Darwin proceeds to tell a highly imaginative story,
stringing together several "intermediate" stages to explain how the
process from "simple" light sensitive spots to "complex" eyes may have
transpired.
As it turns out, Darwin was totally ignorant of the inner workings of
the cell and the actual chemical pathways required for sight. For images
to be registered in the brain, it takes an incredibly complex
arrangement of photo-chemical receptors, nerve cells, electrical signals
to and within the brain, muscles, tear ducts, skeletal structures, not
to mention the absurdly complicated arrangement of molecules which make
up the eye itself.
For example, the retina is a very thin and complex tissue lining the
back of the eye. According to Dr. Geoffrey Simmons, the retina contains
7 million cone cells for color assessment, 125 million rod cells for
adaptation to the dark, and 1.2 million nerve cells that collect
billions of bits of information![1]
Put simply, the entire arrangement has to work or it doesn't work!
The bottom line is this: Darwin's explanation was totally inadequate
to explain the origin of sight. In fact, after 150 years of research,
today's evolutionary scientists have not produced any better
explanation. While we observe various kinds of eyes throughout the
animal kingdom today, there is no clear fossil evidence, nor any other
evidence, supporting Darwin's story of gradual, step-by-step, evolution
from simple to complex.
In fact, there are no natural processes (biological, chemical, or
mechanical) that can produce coordinated, specific instructions and
build complex biological mechanisms to do what a living organism does to
live, survive, and reproduce. It takes an Intelligent Designer to
produce that level of complexity.
While talking recently with a self-described skeptic, I simplified
our discussion by pointing out that there are only two explanations for
the origin of life. In a cause and effect universe, the effect (life)
must have an adequate cause. Either life came from inanimate matter
(from non-living molecules), or life came from some pre-existing life.
The first theory assumes matter is all that exists; the second assumes
that God also exists.
The question is: can we get life from non-life? Every experiment
conducted since Pasteur in the mid 1800's affirms that life does NOT
come from non-living stuff. Non-living molecules are not a sufficient
cause for producing a living organism. Therefore, the only other
explanation must be true: life came from a pre-existing, living God.
If there are clear scientific reasons not supporting the theory of
naturalistic evolution, then it seems only fair to present this evidence
to students in science class. Yet a current debate is raging over
allowing scientific observations that counter evolution into the
classroom and whether "intelligent design" is a viable alternative to
naturalistic evolution.
Current scientific evidences are undermining evolutionary theory at
its core, and evolutionists are fighting back with all they've got to
maintain their absolute control over what is taught in school. This
tells me that more than science is going on here. Evolution is being
revealed as not just a scientific paradigm, but a religiously held
belief in naturalism.
It's time to be honest with the evidence and with the fact that only
one worldview is currently being allowed in class. Maybe science
teachers should use the eye as an example for teaching students to see
through the "just so" story of Darwin's naturalism to the more logical
explanation for an Intelligent Designer. In that way, students will no
longer be indoctrinated with only one worldview, but will be taught to
think in terms of evaluating the available evidence to the best
conclusion. Isn't that what science education is all about?
Recommended books:
- What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons, M.D.
- Intelligent Design, William Dembski, Ph.D.
- Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, Ph.D.
- Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Notes
- Geoffrey Simmons, What Darwin Didn't Know (Harvest House:
Eugene, OR, 2004), p. 114.
By Summit Ministries