Eye Variety and Evolution

There's no shortage of tales to tell by evolutionary owlhoots for the sake of propping up their presuppositions. What does the variation in eyes throughout living things tell you? Simple answer first: the variety of eyes tells you that there's a variety of eyes. National Geographic people are saying that they can reconstruct the history of evolution based on computer programs and speculations. Evidence for evolution? That'll be the day!

Some evolutionists claim that the variety of eyes in nature is evidence for evolution. Not hardly! In fact, it is bad storytelling.
Cats' eyes have a tapetum lucidum that reflects light back through the eye so they can see better in the dark.
Part of the story is that "convergent evolution" (a theoretical excuse that is used when there is no actual evidence) for eyes happened at least 40 times. Also, evolution is given a demigod status here, too, exhibiting creativity and thrift. Not hardly! This evolutionary storytelling is also an example of ignoring certain data and alternative explanations. The best explanation is that the Creator designed different eyes for creatures for their particular realms, and that similarities are examples of design, not evolution.
Simple or complex, small or large, conventional or unusual, the many sorts of eyes in the biological world are perfectly suited to the creatures they serve. When lined up according to complexity, they form a sequence that—according to evolutionists—affirms the prophetic power of Darwinian thought. “Inside the Eye: Nature’s Most Exquisite Creation,” a recent National Geographic feature, paints the many eyes in nature as masterpieces of evolution, each representing an evolutionary stage.

The National Geographic author accuses creationists of misusing Darwin’s famous quotation in which he supposedly called the idea that eyes could evolve “absurd.” We at Answers in Genesis do not. Refuting this misconception, Dr. Tommy Mitchell in “Didn’t Darwin Call the Evolution of the Eye Absurd?” includes Darwin’s quotation in its entirety. He points out that Darwin’s God-rejecting presupposition that evolution was our “maker” led him to believe that the existence of eyes at such varying complexity was evidence that natural selection really was the agent the built them all, no matter how “absurd” such a notion seemed.
I hope you see fit to read the rest of the article by clicking on "Does the Diversity of Eyes in Nature Support Evolution?" 

I spy with my dilated eyes...