The eye could not have evolved

I recently commented on a Facebook post concerning evolution of the eye, which encouraged me to share the following with you.
This linkĀ is a clip from Revelation TV of Howard Conder interviewing Richard Dawkins about the eye. The eye is a favourite challenge to evolutionists by Christians who say it is too complex to have evolved. The producer of this video, as he explains, mixes a much earlier explanation by Dawkins with the more recent Revelation TV clip.
In brief, Dawkins says a primitive animal randomly acquired a light-sensitive cell enabling it to distinguish between light and dark. This improved in time, allowing the animal to sense direction of light and then, gradually, begin to recognise shapes, and so on.
This explanation falls at the first hurdle.
If the animal randomly acquired a light-sensitive cell, it would have had no means of processing that information and the cell would have therefore been of absolutely no advantage. There would have been no connection between this new, randomly formed cell and anything – a brain? – that would enable that processing. How would the light-sensitive cell have known it needed a brain to process its information; how would a brain have known it needed to go looking for a light-sensitive cell?
To believe that a connection could have evolved and somehow found its way, either from the cell to the processor or in the other direction, is pure fantasy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *