Saturday, August 06, 2005

 

The Proof Is In The Eyes

At some point we needed to talk about the eye. The compexity of the eye is often cited as proof of intelligent design (ID). The human eye is marvelous, but the Bald Eagle has exceptional eyesight. An eagle's eye is about the same size as a human's but it has been estimated that it can see four times better. It may be able to see a rabbit from a mile away. I'd like to have eyes that see as well as an eagle. Why don't I? Did humans get version 1.0 of the eye and eagles got version 1.4? Was version 1.4 a better eye which was an improved version that the intelligent designer developed from things he/she/it learned while developing the human eye? Not likely. An omniscient and omnipotent intelligent designer wouldn't need to learn by trial and error.

Maybe the eagle has better eyesight because it flies so high and needs better eyesight than we do. No, that explanation is much to close to evolutionary thinking.

Actually, it is worse than that. The human eye is not version 1.0 of the eye. There are serveral different versions of the eye. For example, fish eyes do not work the same way human eyes do. Mollusks' eyes develop from different cells than human eyes. Some creatures have compound eyes. Spiders have eight eyes. Trilobites had compound eyes with lens made from calcite crystals. Snails have eyes that have no lens or retina and basically see only light or dark. (see Eyes in Wikipedia)

Some creatures who live their lives in total darkness have undeveloped eyes or eyes that skin covers making them useless. Why would an intelligent designer give a creature eyes and then make them useless? Since we don't have the knowledge of the intelligent designer, maybe there is a reason we just don't know about. Maybe, but it is a lot more reasonable to accept a Darwinian inspired explanation. The creature had functioning eyes at one point because it needed them. They are no longer funtional because eyesight was of no value in a completly dark cave and they atrophied. I suppose this is an example of evolution in reverse.

Eyes are indeed marvelous, but they do not prove intelligent design.

The Wikipedia article cited above and an article in the New Yorker magazine by H. Allen Orr, were used as sources for this blog.





This post is an example of the
Theory of Unintelligent Design (TUD), things in the universe that don't seem to be created by intelligent design.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?