The problems confronting evolutionary theory are by no means trivial. We are largely unable to characterize what evolution has accomplished and so logically in no position to determine whether evolution has accomplished it. Many properties of living creatures remain resistant to specification, let alone explanation, a fact that becomes embarrassingly evident whenever attempts are made to simulate aspects of animal life. Computer models exist that mimic bird flocking, but no one has the faintest idea how to represent algorithmically the fact that the behavior of higher organisms is in some measure autonomous. Our understanding of various biological systems is profoundly incomplete.
Vision is a case in point.
Inasmuch as the visual system issues in a visual experience , a satisfactory theory of vision must resolve the problem of consciousness. If we knew the laws governing evolution, we should be able mathematically to describe a Darwinian mechanism and by specifying its initial state and boundary conditions see certain portions of the evolutionary record repeat themselves. This would offer biologists the opportunity to do what is commonly done in astrophysics, and that is to compare such simulations with the real world. We can do no such thing. From a mathematical point of view, Darwinian theories appear far too weak to have brought about the remarkable structures evident in living creatures.