From molecular biologist Jonathan Wells at Salvo:
In 2005, Douglas Futuyma published a textbook about evolution claiming that “no intelligent engineer would be expected to design” the “functionally nonsensical arrangement” of cells in the human retina. That same year, geneticist Jerry Coyne wrote that the human eye is “certainly not the sort of eye an engineer would create from scratch.” Instead, “the whole system is like a car in which all the wires to the dashboard hang inside the driver’s compartment instead of being tucked safely out of sight.” Like Dawkins, Williams, Miller, and Futuyma, Coyne attributed this arrangement to unguided evolution, which “yields fitter types that often have flaws. These flaws violate reasonable principles of intelligent design.”
We can be glad, as Wells explains, that these people were not asked to do the engineering.
Because of the high metabolic requirements of the light-sensing cells and their need to regenerate themselves, the inverted retina is actually much better than the “tidy-minded” design imagined by evolutionary biologists.
The blind spot (a in the drawing) is not a serious problem, because the blind spot produced by the left eye is not in the same place as the one produced by the right eye. This means that, in humans with two good eyes, the field of vision of one eye covers for the blind spot of the other eye, and vice versa.
What about the claim that cephalopod eyes are better than vertebrate eyes? … More.
They are too busy writing textbooks on Darwinian evolution to notice.
See also: Jon Wells on science journal boilerplate