The debate about the evolution of the eye has been a flashpoint of passion since evolution was first proposed. Debaters on both sides have focused on the concept of irreducible complexity, single- versus multi-source origins, and biochemical gaps that seem to jump in either explicable or inexplicable ways (depending on which side of the argument one is on).
There’s something that you don’t hear about very often. It lies in simple logic, even common sense. There’s no reason for the evolutionists to consider it because it’s a flaw in their thinking. It’s harder to understand why creationists have not discussed it more deeply and after much research I haven’t found a very good exploration. The idea surrounds a question, one that doesn’t ask how the eye was created but rather why it was initially brought into being.
How can something evolve to detect the presence of light if there was nothing prior to know that light existed in the first place?
This is not going to be an in-depth exploration into the question. There is still plenty of research to be done, but so far everything I’ve seen indicates there’s no evolutionary explanation for why the eye formed. It fulfills a need – the detection of light – before the possibility of knowing there was such a thing as light to be detected.
At first, I figured there must be a simple answer that I missed, one that is well-known in evolutionary circles to combat this issue, but after exploring the topic and discussing it with many, I found nothing. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I “stumped” evolutionists I’ve questioned over the last four+ years since starting to ask the question, but responses were very mixed and clearly concerning from their perspective.
Science can trace back the origins of they eye to basic photo-receptors on simple organisms designed to give them understanding about the directional source of light. However, it has not given a reasonable explanation for how this amazing trait spawned in the first place. It cannot be dismissed to the evolutionist’s favorite trick, mutation. There is a tremendous gap between not having photosensitive cells and having them because it requires multiple simultaneous complex mutations to form the most basic light-detecting organs.
A common argument is that the detection of light evolved from an inherent ability to detect heat (which also fails the irreducible complexity challenge), but this concept has many flaws as well. Light and heat are only loosely associated in a pre-historic world where gravity is the easier concept for simple creatures to sense. There would not have been a need to detect heat through the presence of light when going against gravity in the prehistoric goo of an evolutionist’s worldview would bring creatures closer to the warmth of the surface.
To generate the evolutionary need for creatures to detect light and therefore develop photosensitive cells, they would have needed to understand that light existed in the first place. With nothing to let them know that light existed, there would have been no need for photo-receptors to evolve in the first place. Eyespots are the earliest stage of the evolution of the eye. You can trace it all back to eyespots. However, there is no explanation for why eyespots came into being.
It’s not as elegant as the argument against the evolution of flight or the metamorphosis dilemma, but it is an argument that evolutionists have never been able to reconcile and is therefore a valid point of discussion.