No, Nathan Lents Did NOT Refute the Eye as Evidence of Design

Among the most familiar proofs for the existence of God is the Watchmaker argument (See below for a quick video explanation of the Watchmaker argument). That is, you are walking along in a field and look down to see a beautiful Rolex watch lying on the ground. Your immediate thought is that it appeared there before you strictly by chance after simply popping into existence from nothing, right?

No, you far more likely assumed, especially if you are William Paley, that a watch requires a watchmaker, in this case, one located in Switzerland who charges high prices for the privilege of wearing one of its products on your wrist to impress everybody around you.

But ask proponents of intelligent design and you are more likely to hear about the eye as a far more powerful evidence of design. The parts of the eye must come together in a certain sequence and there is no specific evolutionary reason for any one part of the eye to exist and survive over time in and of itself.

Still, opponents of intelligent design deny the eye. Recently, Professor Nathan Lents of John Jay College in New York posted on his excellent Human Evolution Blog a case for the proposition that in fact the eye developed in an evolutionary process and is thus evidence for the validity of macro-evolution.

Writing in Evolution News & Science Today, however, Professor Cornelius Hunter sees major problems with Lents’ arguments, which he explains in terms that make the discussion readily accessible:

“The eye, as I noted here earlier this week, has traditionally been admired as powerful evidence of design in the natural world. And for good reason. While biology is full of fantastically adaptive, fine-tuned, designs, it seems that vision systems must be somewhere near the top of the list. But Professor Nathan Lents insists this is all wrong and, in fact, the human eye is nothing less than a powerful refutation of design.

“In centuries past the human vision system was admired for features that we take for granted today. But just because a feature is obvious does not mean it cannot tell us something about its design.

“Such features were highlighted three hundred years ago by the leading naturalist John Ray. The pupil, Ray noted, dilates and contracts in dim and bright conditions, respectively. The incoming light passes through the lens of the eye, and so is inverted at the retina. Yet the nerves rectify the image to its ‘right or natural posture….'”

Go here for the rest of this excellent analysis.

---