Absurd in the Highest Degree

Introduction

There is an ongoing debate over the origin of life between Evolutionists and Creationists. Creationists believe that life, as we know it, is far too complicated to have evolved completely. Instead they believe a master creator made all life. Some also believe that life has proceeded to adapt a small amount to certain conditions surrounding its lifestyle (Ashcraft). These people are referred to as Theistic Evolutionists (Zindler). Evolutionists believe that life began over 4,000 million years ago, with the origin of asexual molecules. These changed into simple cells, which eventually changed into the first animals (“When Did”). Both sides use the extremely complex human eye to help support their beliefs. Creationists look at the eye and see an organ so intricate that the only possible origin is a creator. Evolutionists see the eye as an achievement built up to by the accumulation of many mutations (Zindler).

Anatomy of the Eye

To fully understand both parties’ views concerning the eye, we must first have an adequate understanding of the complexity of the eye and the part it plays in the act of sight.

The eye does not “see” all by itself. Its job is to identify light, shadow, and color, and convert it into electrical impulses it can then send to the brain. The brain then interprets those impulses as sight (Bianco).

The eye is shaped like a slightly flattened sphere. It has three main layers, the sclera, (1.) choroid, (3.) and the retina (7.) (Bianco). The sclera is the first layer. It is the white part of the eyeball. It is hard and its purpose is to keep the eye in the same shape. A small part of the sclera, in the front of the eye, is clear and is called the cornea.(2.) This is a “window” into the eye. Light, when entering the eye, always passes through the cornea (Bianco).

Located in the front of the eye between the first and second layer is a pocket of water-like liquid called the aqueous humor.(12.) The aqueous humor is made up of two chambers. The anterior chamber is located in front of the iris while the posterior chamber is located behind the iris (5.) (Bianco). The aqueous humor keeps the cornea moist (Pinkston596).

The second layer of the eye is called the choroid. Its purpose is to supply blood to the rest of the eye. The front portion of the choroid is where the ciliary body (4.) and the iris are located. The ciliary body is a group of muscles attached to the lens that stretches and loosens the lens to help focus the eye. The lens (14.) is a thin part of the eye, only 10 millimeters thick, that is biconvex, or bends out in both directions. It refracts the light in such a way as to have it in perfect focus. The iris is the part of the eye that is colored. The lighter a person's eyes are the less pigment is present. For example, blue eyes have the least amount of pigment, while brown eyes have the most amount of pigment. The iris contains two muscles that control the size of the opening that light enters through. In dark light, the dilator muscle makes the pupil, or opening in the iris, larger, letting more light in. In bright light the sphincter muscle makes the pupil smaller allowing less light into the eye (Bianco).

After light passes through the first two layers, the cornea and the pupil, it enters the innermost layer of the eye called the retina. This is a very sensitive part of the eye that contains rod and cone cells. The rod cells’ job is to see in low light. The cone cells are responsible for color vision and fine detail. There is a place in the back of the eye that is called the macula, in the center of which is found the fovea centralis. This portion of the eye contains only cone cells and is responsible for seeing small details clearly (Bianco).

Inside the retina is a chemical called rhodopsin. It converts the light picked up by the rod and cone cells and changes it into electrical impulses, which are carried to the brain via the optic nerve. (9.) The brain takes over the rest of the process of identifying the electrical impulse as a picture (Bianco). Inside the “bubble” created by the retina is a clear, gel-like substance called the vitreous humor (11.). It is much larger than the aqueous humor.

Six muscles attached to the sclera rotate the eye. These muscles are as follows:

Medial Rectus-Moves the eye so it points at the nose

Lateral Rectus-Moves the eye so it looks away from the nose

Superior Rectus-Moves the eye so it looks up.

` Inferior Rectus-Moves the eye so it points down

Superior oblique-Rotates the eye

Inferior Oblique-Rotates the eye

These muscles are responsible for all movement of the eye (Bianco).

Creationist vs. Evolutionist Argument

Now that we have a satisfactory comprehension of what the eye is and how it works, we can investigate the opinions of the Creationists and Evolutionist to a deeper level.

Creationist Perspective

As the reader now knows, the eye is a very sensitive and intricate organ. The creationists believe all the detail could not have come about through random mutations.. Many Creationists come from a biblical background and believe that God created the earth, the heavens and everything contained within them. In Genesis, the first book of their bible, it lays out the time period in which their God created the earth. He created all the solar system, plants, animals and landforms in six days. On the sixth day God created man. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

During the process of evolution when the organism has only part of an eye, creationists say it would impossible for that organism to get any beneficial results from the mutation because all the parts of the eye are so interconnected that without one part it could not function properly (Nilsson).

Creationists are very adamant that there are no new genes. All adaptations or new species are the result of a loss of genetic information. Because there is no new genetic information, animals cannot form new parts they had never possessed. An animal with a very primitive eye cannot develop new parts to its eye (Ashcraft).

There are two very different types of evolution. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale. It often is just variations in a population building upon one another, and it never involves new genetic material. In fact it always involves loss of genetic material. All of its changes occur within a species. On the other hand macroevolution is a change that is very complex. It involves introducing new genes to the organism as it evolves. Its changes result in a new species being formed (Gorman). Of the two, microevolution is not controversial because its effects are easily observed. Macroevolution on the other hand is one of the key points that evolutionists and creationists differ on (Gorman).

Evolutionists say there is a gene pool that contains all the genes found in the world. For evolution to happen, there has to be a change in the gene pool. To create new parts, such as an eye in an organism with no eye, you have to have a gene that will become that part. Evolutionists account for this by pointing to mutations and natural selection. This would require the organism to gain the gene needed for the necessary part, or in other words come up with a new gene. Creationists say this is impossible (Gish). All microevolution involves the loss of genes, never gaining a new gene (Ashcraft). Creationists say there are no new genes being formed in the gene pool. (Gish)

Creationists say the only possible way the “gene pool” can be changed is through mutation. Beneficial mutations are very rare because the human body has built safeguards against mutation. There are three possible outcomes of mutations. They could have no affect, be harmful, or be beneficial. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no effect. Only a tiny number of mutations are beneficial (Gish).

The evolution theory states that the universe started out very simple and has become increasingly more complicated and orderly. When a single celled organism becomes multicelled and then specializes, reproduces and evolves, it is becoming more complex and orderly (Webster 431). The second law of thermodynamics states “Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out”(Lambert). So, in other words, things go from order to disorder. The second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems like the universe. Based on the Second law of thermodynamics, evolution doesn’t make sense because it directly contradicts what the law says about things in an isolated system going from order to disorder.

Evolutionist Perspective

Evolutionists believe that all life came from asexual molecules that were able to reproduce. Through natural selection and mutations over millions and millions of years, these molecules slowly changed into organisms and eventually made up all the life we now have on our planet (“When did”).

Evolutionists say that an extremely primitive eye (one that can only differentiate between light and dark) could undergo small adaptations making it have just a slight advantage over its surrounding organisms. Then through natural selection (the fittest survive predators and natural conditions) this organism could survive and mate longer spreading its beneficial gene to its offspring. After many of these adaptations, evolutionists believe the organisms developed an eye that functions at the same level as the human eye (Nilsson).

When creationists point to the detailed and highly specialized eye as proof of creation, evolutionists say the eye is not perfect. Their bases for saying it is not perfect is the fact that it is so sensitive. It can easily be injured, and it deteriorates with age. So, according to evolutionists, if the creationist’s theory was true, the creator must have made a mistake (Zindler). Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson sums up the evolutionist argument by saying, “If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.”

One of the important proofs of evolution is the fossil record. This fossil record holds tangible evidence of different organism’s remains that have been preserved for millions and millions of years. The Archaeopteryx is a famous fossil of an animal that appears to be in transition from a dinosaur into a bird. Evolutionists say that the organisms that are “transition animals” that cannot be found alive today are rapidly being discovered in the fossil record (Stewart). Some examples of these transitional organisms are the Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, and the Protospinax. These transitional animals are only transitions from a primitive fish into sharks, and other sea animals. There are many more fossils that appear to be transitions in other evolutionary changes (Hunt).

Some evolutionists believe that creationists chose a religion then chose which evidence to look at in order to back up their beliefs (Zindler).

In Conclusion

Science is made up of facts about the universe that humans can observe and repeat. (Pinkston 679) No humans observed the creation or evolution of the universe in its entirety. There would be no possible way to repeat the creation of the universe so all beliefs as to how the earth was created are technically theories, because they are not, by definition, scientific. This applies to both evolutionist and creationist beliefs. They are based on circumstantial evidence; neither is scientific theory (Gish). Both sides will argue their point until the end of time. No matter what either side comes up with to support its point, it will not be widely accepted by the other. Creationists and evolutionists take a firm stand in what they believe. There may be some people who are persuaded either way but on the whole there will always be this argument over the creation of the universe. Because there is no possible way to repeat the formation of the universe, there will never be solid scientific proof as to one way or the other. Both sides believe they are true.

This paper was not written to persuade anyone to one side or the other. The purpose was to unearth the conflict and give a brief glimpse as to each side’s argument. Each of us is entitled to our own opinions, though we will have to someday account for our beliefs.

Works Cited

Ashcraft, Christopher. “Daily Lecture.” Snohomish County Christian School. Mountlake Terrace, WA: 10 Sept. 2003.
Bianco, Dr. Carl. “How Vision Works.” How Stuff Works. 26 Nov. 2003 http://science.howstuffworks.com/eye.htm
Gish, Dr. Dwayne. “The Issue: Creation vs. Evolution.” Summit Ministries. Manitou Springs, CO: 19 Aug. 2003.
Gorman, Linda. “Defying Darwin.” 7 Sept. 1999 Access Research Network. 4 Jan. 2004 http://www.arn.org/docs/Kansas/cugorman90799.htm
Holy Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.
Hunt, Kathleen. “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.” 17 March 1997. 5 Jan. 2004 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faqtransitional/part1a.html#fish
Lambert, Frank L. “Second Law of Thermodynamics.” Nov. 2003 2 Jan. 2004 www.secondlaw.com/two.html
Nilsson, Dan-Erik. “Evolution of the Eye.” 2001 Public Broadcasting System. 26 Nov. 2003 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Pinkston, William S., Jr. Biology for Christian School’s Education. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1999.
Stewart, Russell. “Interpreting the Real Fossil Record.” 1993. 5 Jan. 2004 http://www.swcp.com/~diamond/cre_radio3.shtml
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Frederick C. Mish, gen ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1991.
“When Did Evolution Start?” 31 Dec. 2003 http://www.gridclub.com/fact_gadget /1001/nature/evolution/184.html
Zindler, Frank. “Creationist’s Response.” 6Aug. 2000 Does an Objective Look at the Human Eye Show Evidence Of Creation. 26 Nov. 2003 http://www.2think. org/eye_response.shtml