A Contradiction to Evolution

I have taken it upon myself to study both evolution and the opposing viewpoints. I feel like it is important, no matter what I believe, to learn both sides.

I am currently reading a book with an opposing viewpoint to neo-darwinism (modern theory of Darwinism). It is not opposing evolution in general, but rather a biochemist is trying to convince that there are flaws of natural selection and the origin of species on a Lilliputian scale (micro evolution).

I want to hear if there is an explanation to discredit one of this man's points. If you could help me, that would be great:

"The human eye is very complex. If a person lacked any of the eye's many integrated features, the result would be in a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Darwin proposed the idea that it takes several generations to 'evolve' an eye. Unfortunately, gradual development of the human eye appears to be impossible, since its many sophisticated features seem to be interdependent."

Basically what this man said, was that the characteristics in the eye (which, on a lilliputian scale are countless features, actions, and processes) are completely interdependent. If Darwin's theory is correct, how could all these things develop in small portions if they depend on each other. Without a single one of them, the eye or the early development of the eye would be a burden to the animal.

Is there a counter argument to this? All sides are welcome.

There are numerous versions of the eye, and many "partial" eyes exist in nature down to light sensitive patches. The eye only had to be as good as necessary for survival. Anything above that can convey a heritable advantage. If you look at humans, there are numerous people who wear glasses. How many of them could live without their glasses? Most. A breakdown of the "many integrated features" does not result in the profound failures suggested.