How to Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight

What would you think of a person who saw a computer chip with millions of transistors that were self-connected into a computer and it all worked--who said,

"You know that spontaneous events formed that computer chip by electrical and mineral activity -- multiprocessing program included? It is scientific fact that the chip obviously had no designer, no plan or maker! Oh, that is explained by billions of years of processes by pressures of nature..."

You would think that person was not just confused. Yet, the evolutionist essentially says that's how the optic center in the brain came to exist, and that is a more interdependent processor than the most advanced computer chip ever made. So they say that the optic nerves, the eye and the retina all happened by a series of natural events that we can call ad hoc mistake--"formed in one particular moment without ability to consider any application."

So then is the existence of a gnat or mosquito, with exquisite processing that enables flight, formed without logic, design or awareness, in that process... need it be so. Evolutionists may even propose that it was not by random chaos. How would evolution not be "random chaos?" That's a fair question to ask.

Evolutionists argue that [non-directed] features that improve a creature’s chance for survival get passed on in succeeding generations. Is it just as logical that all mutations would be passed on? Whether or not they are beneficial there is no awareness of the process by the genetic system. So, how would the unrelated parts of an eye and a brain now correlate, by independent mutations--all "failures" of the previously existing genetic process. Unobservant processes that did not realize their own existence then continued, added, subtracted by failures (mutations) of the genetic system, and perhaps surviving to breed, and therefore passing on defects, or dying before they get a chance to breed!


  1. Image titled Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight Step 1
    Point out that clearly evolution if it works is by failure of a previously successful part or system in genetic accidents called mutations. The fact that life in any form and the eye have highly interdependent, simultaneously successful systems may make evolution seem illogical or nonsensical. There are many well known genetic system "crashes" (failing to work as usual) like downs syndrome, Siamese twins, idiot savant... but there's more to consider like spina bifida--birth defect with an open spinal column or protruding nerve meninges -- and births without appendages or with stubs. Do these benefit the individual... but where are such obvious, but useful changes in the individual at those or nearby sites in the genetic codes... where is the occasional, super-ability (out of bounds in the positive direction)...
  2. Image titled Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight Step 2
    "Describe a strictly reactive system that is disintegrated and lacking intelligence that forms interdependent, successful systems inadvertently--call it evolution." Evolution could not work proactively, but by random chaos it would be able in one dimension or another to avoid falling into total failure although life was blind, deaf, brainless and even totally senseless at some original form in the eons of time according to evolution--call it a system of mistakes, ie: failing to work properly, and so that is success...
  3. Image titled Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight Step 3
    Examine a partly functional eye. The retinal, photosensitive cells alone without millions of parallel nerve fibers connecting it to the brain, without the optic center processing millions of pulses of light, or how would there be any optical image processor in the brain without the rich blood supply to the retina. Each part would have little if any value. Such independent structures would have not aided survival. Separately, such parts would not have any theoretical reason to exist (no benefit to life)! So were they or were they not multiple, interdependent, codependent systems? So clearly they were passed on to the next generations without purpose, and so they blindly improved by random chaos and by failing to connect...
    • Consider the pupil of the eye and the retina that did not exist at exactly the same moment--would they ever "get together" since they would neither have any correlation to each other nor help survival separately?
    • If the focal distance and a workable shape of eye did not “come about” at the necessary distance from the photoreceptors in the retina, the eye nerves would neither have a reason to exist nor to even connect to the brain.
    • If the bag of fluid which forms the lens did not appear in the eye at the same time as photoreceptors regardless of the distance it would be useless to the individuals success.
    • If the retinal nerves network did not “exist” exactly at the same moment as the sclera (dense fibrous opaque white outer covering of the eyeball) and the part covered by the transparent cornea, iris and the pupil did, then the eye wouldn’t see. The uncovered retinal nerves, not bathed in fluid, not protected from sunlight and air, would clearly either die from exposure or scar over and have no value--as exquisitely fragile.
    • An extremely large and uncorrelated nerve bundle alone has no value. In fact if there were no already, successful eye, the optic nerve would not exist according to logic of evolution.
    • If the optic nerve (which carries the nerve signals of light “images”' to the brain) were not “involved/engaged properly” at exactly the same moment as the retinal nerve network, the eye wouldn’t see.
    • If the sight center of the brain that “sees” did not “begin” to correctly process sight at exactly at the same moment as the optic nerve, then the nerve would have no reason to transmit or to be attached to the brain and the eye wouldn’t see.
  4. Image titled Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight Step 4
    Observe needed simultaneous existence of the entire eye and all its functions plus the optic nerve from the eye to the brain and especially the sight center in the brain itself. All of the necessary advanced functions, and their interdependent relationships are all required to exist (at the exact same instant), or the eye would have no function or reason to exist. The parts would not work separately at the most rudimentary level (in some aquatic creature according to evolutionary theory) before it evolved into a mouse (shrew or what have you) and then to a monkey like creature, etc. according to a well known accident-and-systematic-failure-theory of origins ("evolutionary theory").
  5. Image titled Argue Against Evolution of Eyesight Step 5
    See that the a non-functional part of an eye would not enhance survival and so the eye should not exist at all as it is not logical to evolve in unsuccessful pieces.


  • If worthless, there is no reason for a partly developed eye to get passed on in its "halfway" development while it awaits further mutation for improvements to allow actual sight which did not exist yet in any creature.
  • How would evolution retain the developing eyeball in its worthless socket as it would not be an improvement for its owner? Why would the sightless eye have muscles attached to it? They wouldn’t be helpful...
  • Try to imagine how the eye, hand, foot and hearing are all keenly coordinated in bits and pieces of fortuitous accidents. That alone is beyond reason...
  • Avoid confusion about God or confusion caused by thinking that science is necessarily right about how this happened.
  • God always allows room for faith and gives faith as a gift to those that seek him. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that comes to God must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligently seek him."(Hebrews 11:16)
  • A partly developed and "non-functioning" eye is no improvement whatsoever to the creature that possessed it. It would be worthless. Why would that exist then?
  • Pray to understand, to believe and then to accept that God created the universe and guided the existence of simultaneously required interdependent elements in any and all forms of life.


  • The eye cannot be a product of evolution by fits and starts (random chaos). Instead, it speaks clearly that there is the master design and great Designer, the ingenious Creator called the Great Physician. The eye testifies to the Glory of God by its intricate interdependent processing. How could the interdependent functions of eyesight exist at all since eyesight requires many simultaneously existing "working" parts if it were all by a profusion of messy accidents--called mutations.
  • The cornea is the only tissue in the body that, due to its function, cannot have life-giving oxygen delivered to it by the bloodstream. It is amazing that the cornea is also the only tissue in the body that does not get its oxygen from the blood system--Coincidence? or was it an ingenious move that the Creator enabled the cornea to get its oxygen supply directly from the air. The cornea does have its own private breathing ability.
  • "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." (Psalm 139:14) The awesome and scarily precise nature of sight is just a single part of the whole person which is full of intricacies (dependencies). Think about the many other similarly dependent systems that are required to simultaneously support life (thousands in each cell).
  • From the top of your head to the bottom of your feet, all cells are supplied with life-giving oxygen that is delivered by the heart, lungs, and blood vessel system. That is, all cells except for the ones that comprise one particular tissue...: the cornea--the clear portion (in the area of the pupil) through which light passes in the front of the eye). Fearfully made by Dr. Jim Livengood, MD specialist in diseases of the eye
    • If there were blood vessels and blood cells racing through the corneal tissue, we would not be able to see because of the opaque nature of red blood. Compared to light wavelengths, the relatively giant red blood cells would interfere with the transmission of light to the retina in the back of the eye.

Article Info

Categories: Faith and Belief