for Truth
Biology - 6
by Bruce Malone

Complexity testifies to design

Darwin went on to express confidence that natural selection was sufficient to explain the development of the eye1, but how does this confidence stand up in the light of reason? Today, we are in the curious intellectual situation of only allowing into public schools naturalistic explanations for life's development. This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (that life is the result of an intelligent designer) more adequately explains the observations. There would have to have been an incredible number of changes in the first creature to have developed an eyeball. Simple light absorbing cells are so far removed from the mechanisms and design of any eyeball that the gap between the two is incalculably enormous.

Volumes have been written on the operation of a human eyeball with all of its intricate protective mechanism, balance of muscles, fluids, lenses, and nerves. For the eyeball to have developed from the light sensitive patches of simple organisms, each improvement would have to have to been coded onto the DNA of the "new" creature in order for the improvements to pass on to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened. Furthermore, each new features would need to be independently useful or natural selection would have not allowed the new creature live.

  • An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.
  • An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.
  • An eyeball without a perfectly functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.
  • An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.
  • An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless.
It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could produce any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. This leaves intelligent supernatural design as the most plausible alternative. Even in Darwin's time the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Today, with the additional knowledge scientists have discovered concerning the eyes of other creatures, eyes provide even stronger evidence for creation.

For instance, as we travel down the "evolutionary ladder" to examine those creatures which were supposedly among the earliest life forms on the planet, would it not be logical to expect their eyes to be less complex? Contrary to this expectation, among the lowest rock layers are found multi-cellular creatures known as trilobites. The fossilized remains of these creatures reveal an extremely sophisticated optical system.2 Some trilobites show that they had a compound eye placed in such a way as to allow 360o vision. All compound eyes are ideally suited for detecting minute motions and some trilobite eyes were specially designed to correct for spherical aberration allowing a clear image from each facet. Even more impressive is that each lens individually compensates to allow for undistorted underwater imaging. Furthermore, some trilobites eyes were placed to allow a zone of overlapping vision such that depth perception was possible. Thus, one of the "earliest" invertebrate creatures had clear underwater vision through eyes which could detect imperceptibly small motions in all directions simultaneously and with depth perception. Yet this creature was not at the end of the evolutionary line but supposedly near the beginning! How curious that no direct ancestor to this incredible complex creature (or even its eye) has ever been found.

The complexity of eyes, from those of our own species, to those of extinct creatures, argue for the reality of instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossilized record of how our eyes developed nor is there any testable observations as to how it could have happened without a creator. With these facts in mind, why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education. There are textbooks which present the evidence for both possibilities, thereby allowing students to think for themselves.3

  1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, republished by J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971, p. 167.
  2. R. Levi-Setti, Trilobites: A Photographic Atlas, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1975, pp. 23-45.
  3. Of Pandas and People, Percival Davis & Dean Kenyon, Haughton Publishing, 1993.

This space has been provided by the Christian Celebration Center and the ARK Foundation of Dayton. If you would like a full set of articles, stop by the church office or write to Bruce Malone; 3275 Monroe Rd.; Midland, MI 48642. Permission is granted to copy for non-profit use. Copyright 1998.

Supported by: The ARK Foundation of Dayton, Inc. a non profit organization since June 1995,
We support true science and Biblical religion. Email: ARKY Webmaster
This site is scanned for viruses daily. This document was last modified 7:52 PM 8/17/02