Correction to: Eye https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02560-6, published online 03 May 2023
The name ‘William Paley’ was incorrectly given as ‘William Paisley’ within the original text. The correct sentence should read, “Its stunning intricacies became a fundamental argument for creationism, characterised by William Paley’s infamous watchmaker analogy and even Charles Darwin conceded it “absurd” to consider the eye a product of evolution (although this was expertly deconstructed in his On the Origin of Species).”
The original article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Gandhewar, R. Correction: Why is ophthalmology so brilliant?. Eye 37, 3706 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02664-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02664-z
