Creationist Wisdom #783: Eyes Disprove Evolution

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Tulsa World of Tulsa, Oklahoma. It’s titled The eyes disprove evolution theory, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Gordon. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is now accepted as Gospel truth by atheists all over the world, has a gaping hole that does not give a plausible explanation of how or why the Eye evolved out of darkness.

Creationists usually quote-mine Darwin and claim that he couldn’t imagine how the eye evolved. We debunked that ancient clunker in Evolution of the Eye. But Gordon has a different approach. He says:

The staggering complexity of an eye, and the independent design for each species was more than Darwin, or his followers, cared to explain.

Darwin didn’t care to explain it? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! In Origin of Species, Chapter 6, after the sentence that is usually quoted out of context by creationists, he said:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Following that, Darwin provides pages of details describing earlier versions of eyes as evidence of their gradual evolution. Anyway, Gordon claims Darwin was baffled, and so is everyone else. He tells us:

The variations seem almost endless. For example, the eyes of predators differ from the eyes of prey. The eyes of some aquatic animals have a second set of transparent eyelids to facilitate sight under water, just like the camel which has a second set of transparent eyelids to facilitate sight in a sandstorm.

Variations prove eyes didn’t evolve? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! If humans were the only species with eyes, and all others were as blind as sponges, then Gordon would have something to talk about. Oh wait — then he says:

And the bat has two sets of eyes, regular eyes and sonar vision with its ears.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Gordon is talking about Animal echolocation, which isn’t unique to bats. He continues:

It now appears that Darwin’s entire theory is in jeopardy with the discovery of a little fish called Astyanax Mexicanus. It survives in tropical rivers and lakes as any other fish with excellent vision. It also survives in deep, dark caves where there is no light, where it’s eyes have practically disappeared, in a case of reverse evolution.

Gasp! The entire theory is in jeopardy? Wikipedia has a write-up on those fish, but it doesn’t mention the downfall of Darwin. It does, however, say this:

Among some creationists, the cave tetra is seen as evidence ‘against’ evolution. One argument claims this is an instance of “devolution” — showing an evolutionary trend of decreasing complexity. But evolution is a non-directional process, and while increased complexity is a common effect, there is no reason why evolution cannot tend towards simplicity if that makes an organism better suited to its environment.

Ah well, good try. And now we come to the end:

If you need proof that God exists: The eyes have it.

Gordon has his proof, and he’s happy. We’re happy too, because his letter is a great addition to our collection.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #783: Eyes Disprove Evolution

  1. Richard Bond

    Gordon has genes to construct a tail. He has other genes that have suppressed his tail. Would he regard this as forward or reverse evolution?

  2. Eric Lipps

    The problem for such people is that they can’t, or won’t, get past the notion that it’s either the eye as we know it today or nothing.

    But we have known instances of more primitive structures which serve somewhat the same purpose as an eye. The “pits” of a pit viper, for example, are lined with photoreceptors sensitive to infrared radiation; these help the snakes spot their warm-blooded prey at night or in shadow. They’re not full-formed “eyes,” but clearly represent a step in that direction.

    And once again there’s the question: if it’s so easy to disprove evolution that undereducated laymen can do it in an instant, why didn’t the theory flop immediately in the nineteenth century, when belief in Genesis was still widespread among credible scientists?

  3. It is possible for humans to use echolocation:

  4. David Williams

    It is possible for humans to use echolocation:

  5. independent design for each species
    This is the first that I’ve heard of this.
    Has there ever been a test of whether an eye transplant could work across species? A quick look tells me that there is work being done with coreas,
    How about some simple eyes, say in species of flatworms?

  6. The blind spot in the vertebrate eye always seemed to me a poor “design”. It also is odd the designer would make an improved version in the higher mollusks. Of course the better reason is that in vertebrates the eye evolved from brain cells and in mollusks the eye evolved from skin cells.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    How hard is it to type in google “eye evolution” and read the first result before you start pounding out such a dopey letter?

  8. If one were intelligently designing an eye, there is absolutely no reason you would include a transition from air to liquid in the design. This introduces distortions in the image, introduces problems with an intermediate fluid (glaucoma, etc.) and is completely unnecessary (as proven by man made cameras).
    Eyes only make sense if they evolved in water, otherwise they are a horribly poor design and one an intelligent creator should be embarrassed about.

  9. @Charles Deetz 😉
    There is no excuse, is there, for people today to be ignorant about what they are talking about. Doesn’t everyone know about Wikipedia – even pre-teens? There is an article in “simple English”

  10. “If you need proof that God exists: The eyes have it.”

    Would these be the same eyes that I have that have never seen God, even though he’s supposed to be everywhere?

  11. Tom S,
    “A quick look tells me that there is work being done with coreas,” I know a lot of people trying to reunite them.

  12. Ross Cameron

    What I`d like creationists to explain is the design of a kind, loving creator making something like Sacculina as outlined in Zimmer`s book Parasite Rex. A parasitic barnacle that takes over crabs and turns them into robots. What was the big guy thinking at the time? An experiment that got out of hand? A failure he forgot to correct? A Frankenstein who made creatures to suit his evil visions? C`mon, creos, this is Intelligent Design?