Charles Darwin himself realized that it seemed incredible that evolutionary processes could explain human vision. He said:

'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

Yet, later on in the same chapter of his book, he explained how he believed it evolved anyway and that the absurdity was illusory. Had Darwin had the knowledge about the eye and its associated systems that man has today (which is a great deal more than what it was in his time), he may have given up his evolution theory on the origin of life.
Nevertheless, modern science continues to frantically cling on this theory even though it contradicts the common sense and every logic.
The seeing eye is just one among countless examples against natural origins of life, and this episode touches just on a tiny fraction of the tremendous complexity of human eye.
If an ordinary brick requires an intelligent designer, how is that such a complex organ could create it self without influence of any intelligent design? `Modern` scientists would argue that natural selection did it over `millions of years` [meaning - long ago and far away...] and the fittest and the best survived and finally here we have the eye.
But that would be very short sighted! To see, we don`t need just an eye, we need a ton of other things for the process to work. We need a brain, muscles, blood... Which one evolved first, and how good it would be without the other?

свернуть