Eye Evolution: Assumption, Not Science | The Institute for Creation Research
Eye Evolution: Assumption, Not Science

The vertebrate eye is very well-constructed. Its many critical parts work together so that individual light photons are captured and converted into data that the brain then translates into a coherent visual image. Considering the obvious genius and purpose in eye design, claims that mindless natural processes formed the eye can only be made by ignoring the laws of logic.

Recently, Australian neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote a Scientific American article titled "Evolution of the Eye." He included a narrated history, as if he had witnessed an actual eyeball evolve. But instead of providing scientific evidence, his presentation relied on logical fallacies.

First, Lamb granted god-like intelligence to an inanimate force he termed "selective pressures." He wrote, "As body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera [vertebrate] variety." But only an intelligent agent—not passive, unthinking environmental factors—could fashion the massive collection of interdependent parts that form vertebrate eyes. Lamb also wrote that "natural selection…tinkers with the material available to it," when in reality only persons can "tinker."1

The article made eye evolution easier to imagine by excluding the complicated design details of eye anatomy. How, step by step, would "selection" have precisely positioned the 12 muscles that adroitly move the eyeball in its socket, including the one that uses a pulley to properly swivel the eyes?2 And even if perfectly formed eyes and eye-moving muscles had somehow managed to evolve, the apparatus still would have been useless without the involuntary computations that make both the left and right eyes move in concert. In addition to overlooking these vital features, Lamb gave no explanation for how "selective pressures" could have programmed the brain to convert raw light input into discernable mental images.

Lamb wrote, "Biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos." He suggested that embryonic eye development moves from simple to complicated in a pattern similar to eyeball evolution. But embryo eyes have to begin small and are therefore relatively simple at the start. Assuming, with no objective evidence, that embryonic development mirrors an evolutionary past merely begs the question of an evolutionary origin.

In other words, one can use embryonic development to conclude that the vertebrate eye evolved only if one takes for granted that "many aspects of the development of an individual mirror events that occurred during the evolution of its ancestors."1 This uses evolution to prove evolution—a clearly illogical circle.

In telling his eye evolution story, Lamb used terms such as tinkers, diverged, proliferated, arose, arisen, favoring, insert themselves, invention, modified, emergence, and evolved—ignoring the fact that no one has ever observed unthinking, undirected "selective pressures" doing or causing any of those things. These "magic" words mask evolution's lack of real scientific explanations for eye origins and "convey wish-like convictions that if evolutionists just believe deeply enough, their explanations must be true and someday will be true—though currently resisted by all scientific evidence."3

Magic words and logical fallacies are miserable substitutes for science or reason, but they are apparently the best explanatory tools available to those who are determined to find a purely naturalistic cause for eye origins. Based on the evidence, the most logical source for the masterfully designed eye is a Master Designer.

References

  1. Lamb, T. D. 2011. Evolution of the Eye. Scientific American. 305 (1): 64-69.
  2. Gurney, P. 2002. Our eye movements and their control: part 1. Journal of Creation (formerly TJ). 16 (3): 111-115.
  3. Guliuzza, R. 2010. Unmasking Evolution's Magic Words. Acts & Facts. 39 (3): 10-11.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on August 29, 2011.

The Latest
NEWS
ICR’s 2021 Science Expedition Update–Dinosaur Fossils
A team of 11 people from the Institute for Creation Research is currently traveling on a multistate science expedition to dig up fossils, conduct field...

NEWS
ICR’s 2021 Science Expedition Update
A team of 11 people from the Institute for Creation Research is currently traveling on a multistate science expedition to dig up fossils, conduct field...

NEWS
ICR’s 2021 Science Expedition Begins!
The Institute for Creation Research launched its 2021 multistate science expedition last week as a nine-member team left the ICR headquarters in Dallas,...

NEWS
Inside September 2021 Acts & Facts
Why does ICR focus on scientific research? How could paleontologists mistake a lizard fossil for a dinosaur? Is animal death before the Fall theologically...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Beauty by Design
Christy Hardy and Susan Windsor* You’re never too young to be a creation scientist! Kids, discover fun facts about God’s creation with...

ACTS & FACTS
Defend Your Faith with ICR
Have you ever heard a pastor question the historical nature of Genesis? “The days of creation weren’t really 24 hours long. The Bible is...

ACTS & FACTS
Animal Death Before the Fall?
Both the Old and New Testaments teach that death entered the world when Adam ate the forbidden fruit (e.g., Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12). Since fossils...

APOLOGETICS
Transmitting Truth in a Modern Pagan World
We share the world with modern pagans who worship the sun—or idolize an imagined primordial Big Bang—so we need to be truth witnesses unto...

ACTS & FACTS
Waco Mammoth National Monument
Hunters in the 1970s discovered mammoth bones exposed in sediments near the confluence of the Bosque and Brazos Rivers in north central Texas. They...

ACTS & FACTS
Three Hurdles for Evolution
Sure, finch beaks shift their shapes, but does that mean nature invented beaks and birds from stardust? Evolution’s proponents often speak as...