Darwin himself recognised the problem that the evolution of the eye posed to the theory of evolution. Vision has been described as the most complicated functioning system on earth. Decades of research have failed to produce computers or robots with anything like the abilities of the vertebrate eye, and yet Dawkins feels able to say that creationist objections constitute `a light-weight question, a doddle to answer.' The arrogance of the man is astounding.
Have Nilsson and Pelger produced work which will constitute a blow to creationist views on the evolution of the eye? A careful reading of Dawkins' article reveals many generalisations and glossings over of important difficulties. For example, the article claims to be talking about the evolution of the eye, but the research work actually begins with, `a flat patch of light-sensitive cells sandwiched between a transparent protective layer and a layer of dark pigment.' All this was taken as given. Where is this complicated system supposed to have come from, and how long is that part of the evolution supposed to have taken? These vital questions are glossed over. We then find that all that - is actually investigated, using computer simulation, is the invagination of this miraculously-produced sandwich of cells to form a cup shape, similar to the vertebrate eye. A lot of guesswork is then employed as to how long this might have taken, one step at a time, with each change only 1% bigger or smaller than what went before.
The problem is that the vertebrate eye is much more complicated than is implied by this article. The retina is not just a patch of light-sensitive cells. It has a highly organised structure whereby different types of cells are linked together to begin to process the information that has arrived back at the back of the eye. This partly-processed message is then passed up the optic nerve to various parts of the brain where it is further analysed. Until the whole of this processing system is in place, the eye cannot function. As each step of the invagination took place, by chance, it would be necessary for other changes to take place, also by chance, in the brain. The whole system is designed to work as one unit.
Computer simulations are not the same thing at all as real-life evolution. Remember that at the same time as its eye was evolving, every other system in the supposed creature would need to be evolving too, step-by-step, all beautifully synchronised by almighty chance.
Dawkins provides us with some interesting information. He tells us that, `serviceable image-forming eyes have evolved between 40 and 60 times, independently from scratch in various invertebrate groups.' What this actually means is that a comparative study of the eyes of different invertebrates does not show the sort of development that evolution would expect. It is impossible to arrange eyes in a neat ascending order as required by the theory of evolution, and therefore it is necessary to postulate that evolution of stopped and then started again on a different principle. Dawkins also tells us that, `among these 40-plus independent evolutions, at least nine distinct design principles have been discovered, including pinhole eyes, two kinds of camera lens eyes, curved-reflector ("Jodrell Bank") eyes and several kinds of compound eyes.'
Design principles! How do we arrive at design principles without a designer? In this article, as in so many of his other writings, Richard Dawkins provides an excellent illustration of the apt saying, `there are none so blind as those who won't see.'
Sylvia Baker (1995)