Poor Design of Eyes Claim Refuted by Evolutionists Also

Evolutionists, especially atheists, try to point out various features in biology and say that if there was a Creator, he certainly botched things. (The expensive word for that is dysteleology.) Therefore, evolution. 

Meanwhile, these owlhoots use biomimetics to imitate what is observed in nature for human use, but never achieving the perfection. (One time I pointed this out to a misotheist, and he replied that such things were perfected by evolution over millions of years. Evolution perfects, but things are "poorly designed?" You cannot have it both ways, old son.) A favorite area of attack is the design of the eye in vertebrates.

Woman's Eye, Pexels / Mark Arron Smith

Dysteleology is a frequent tactic by atheopaths like their high priest Clinton Richard Dawkins. His followers have an attitude like, "Dawkins said it, I believe it, that settles it". Well, Dawkins is not an ophthalmologist, and his argument is really from personal opinion, not science. By saying it shows there is no Creator, it is also a theological argument. Dawkins and others who make such claims also argue from ignorance. All of their arguments are ridiculous.

When showing biblical creation science material that scientifically and medically refutes the claim that the human eye was the product of poor design, atheists and evolutionist resort to the genetic fallacy (rejecting something because they don't like the sources) to disregard them, and persist in spreading untruths. Such attitudes are actually anti-science, if you study on it. I think they are cowards.

To go further, they claim that the eyes of cephalopods are correct. So, evolution got that one right, but botched the eye of all vertebrates? Biased personal opinions are the sine qua non of science, right?

Since they illogically reject material if it comes from creationists or the Intelligent Design community, mayhaps they'll listen to their own people? Once in a while, there are mavericks in the secular science industry that buck the prevailing views and reexamine some of the dogmas. Although fundamentalist evolutionists, the writers of a paper show that it's not the vertebrate retina that is backward, but the arguments. In fact, they not only show that both vertebrate and cephalopod eyes are optimal in their own environments, they mention design several times. Unfortunately, secularists use Darwin as a shield to avoid facing the truth that the Master Engineer should be credited for his design work (Romans 1:18-23).

One of the most common claims against creationists has long been the allegation that the human body is ‘poorly designed.’ And one of the most popular examples of this poor-design claim is the so-called backward vertebrate retina. The retina is the thin organ located at the back of the eyeball containing the light-sensitive rods and cones.  The claim is made that the vertebrate eye is functionally suboptimal in a significant way. The reason for this claim is that the photoreceptors in the retina are oriented not toward, but away, from incoming light.  Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins considers this an example of poor design because. . . 

. . . 

Two evolutionists have now turned the tables on this claim. Tom Baden and Dan-Eric Nilsson write in Current Biology that vertebrate “eyesight is a compelling testimony to creative design.”

To read the entire article, see "Evolutionists Refute 'Poor Design' Claim for Human Eye." Yippie ky yay, secularists! We told you so!