Intelligent Design and the Eye?

Question

One argument if favour of Intelligent Design I often read is that certain features, such as the eye, are too complex to have arisen by natural means.

But such complex features are arising all the time - every new baby of a species that has eyes - by entirely natural means. If the ID argument is sound should we not posit that every new baby is intelligently designed? In which case would this refute current biological theories about eggs, DNA, gestation etc etc the "theory of reproduction"?

It seems to me either that:
1. Yes, you have to reject the "theory of reproduction" or
2.. Intelligent Design is compatible with the "theory of reproduction"

If "2" then you have to ask yourself what ID is actually saying and have to work pretty hard to get it to exclude evolution. Evolution may be wrong but it would not be ID that showed it to be so and another naturalist explanation of the changes in life forms would be immune to criticism by ID.

So IDers - which is it 1 or 2?

Answer 1

This is a little to one side of the argument, but I had a teacher at school who sincerely believed that God had created living creatures, and he used the example of the eye as a demonstration of how evolution was impossible. What amused me was, this teacher was extremely short-sighted and had to wear glasses with lenses at least a quarter-inch thick. So this perfect Creator of his didn't make such a good job of his eyes, did he? Or his brain if you ask me, but that's just a personal opinion.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Links:
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
References:

1. Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
2. Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.

3. Shimeld, Sebastian M. et al. 2005. Urochordate βγ-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens. Current Biology 15: 1684-1689.

Further Reading:
Dawkins, Richard, 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W.W. Norton, chpt. 5.

Land, M. F. and D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press.

Answer 4

Michael Behe (author of ID) has confirmed that he accepts evolution, thus the straight reading should imply 2.
However the ID bandwagon is perfectly adept at quote mining and taking things out of context to mean whatever they like them to mean.
In any case study shows that eyes have evolved in the animal kingdom on at least 4 seperate occaisions.

Answer 5

Actually, Intelligent Design does not reject your so called 'theory of reproduction'.

Because. God in His infinite wisdom designed us to have offspring through the process of reproduction. It is NOT a theory - it is fact that through sex we reproduce our offspring.

Intelligent Design says that an intelligent being - God - designed all the functions of "all creatures according to their own kind". All plants, animals, and humans - according to each separate kind or species.

Charles Darwin said:
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

You bring up a very good point - DNA, Gestation Periods, and Eggs. But let's look a little deeper into the Anatomy and Physiology differences between an 'ape' and 'man'. The 'theory of evolution' tries to argue that we 'Bi-pedals' came from some kind of 'Knuckle-Walker'

Knuckle-Walking to Bi-pedal
--------------------------------------------
Restructuring of inner ear bones
Spinal cord opening relocated
Rib cage restructured
Increased spinal curvature
Body muscular system changed
Pelvis reshaped
Lower limbs altered
Enlarged joint surfaces
Restructured feet


And those are only a few Anatomy and Physiology differences between Humans and any kind of ape. Anatomy and Physiology do not lie, but they do support the facts of Intelligent Design or Creationism.

And finally, if we are to believe in the 'theory of evolution', than according to what I have read in the Bible - we are actually 'de-evolving'. Because God created the first humans with perfectly healthy bodies, 100% diease and illness free!

Answer 6

Intelligent design is not the way it happened. Evolution works in small steps and random changes. You don't just get an 'eye' evolving overnight!' All you have to do is take God out of the equation and everything works and is explainable.

Answer 7

A common argument is the "watch maker" argument. Since watches don't reproduce, the answer is 1.

Answer 8

Agree with all you say, would just add that "the eye is proof", is a particular favourite of JWs, who collectively have terrible ignorance in all aspect of natural science. `Natural` scares them witless.

Answer 9

Why are you bothering your pretty little head with those complicated debates ? Take it easy. Go out in the back yard and watch the squirrels. This ID business will drive you batty.
My answer is yes

Answer 10

True the process does occur by natural means. But the only reason the process could occur in the first place, is having an orignal human. This human being could not come from anything other than God.