Intelligent Design

It’s Just Getting Worse: Our Retina Structure is “optimized for our vision purposes”

Spread the love

Research out of Israel continues to hammer away at the once powerful proof text for evolution, that our retina is one big kludge given that the photocells were obviously installed backwards. Not only that, but to add insult to injury, the resulting neuron wire bundle had to go somewhere, and the result was a blind spot in our retina. Such a kludge could only be ascribed to the blind process of evolution. The problem with such arguments, aside being nonscientific, is that they are vulnerable to the inexorable march of scientific progress. The act has played out repeatedly: When we first observe a design we don’t understand it and conclude it must be mostly nonsense and another confirmation of evolution. Then, years later, science discovers a nifty function for the design.  Read more

9 Replies to “It’s Just Getting Worse: Our Retina Structure is “optimized for our vision purposes”

  1. 1
    awstar says:

    Jesus Christ suggested there would be days like this:

    The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

    Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. — Luke 11:34-35

  2. 2
    Kaz says:

    Like most of the “once powerful prooftext[s]” for evolution, I’ve always felt that this one was pretty pathetic.

    ~Sean

  3. 3
    Kaz says:

    Greetings!

    Some time back professor James F. McGrath made a comment about how he was banished from this forum. I found that rather hard to believe, considering how tolerant the moderator(s) are here, but I also had no reason to doubt his word.

    His complaint has waxed ironic in that he has banished me from his forum because I regularly post messages there that are pro-ID and anti-Darwinian.

    In my most recent post, I merely pointed out how ironic it was to see him post a picture that juxtaposes Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin vis a vis their shared birthday. I found it ironic because Lincoln’s great accomplishments have thundered through history in positive ways, yet they are often under-appreciated, while Darwin’s ambiguous accomplishments have contributed to great evils in the world, yet they are exaggerated beyond measure!

    That and a few follow-up defenses got me booted from his blog. I didn’t use profanity or vulgarity (never do), though I often use irony and sarcasm for rhetorical effect, and I have tolerated some rather unchristian slanderous accusations from McGrath (he once said that I worship the Devil, and he often calls me dishonest). Still, for the sake of peace I have since deleted my offending comments from his blog. (Odd that I can’t post there but I can delete comments.) I also sent an email to professor McGrath apologizing for the offense, but he hasn’t responded.

    Conclusion: Despite McGrath’s ironic lament over censorship at Uncommon Descent, it turns out that he believes in and practices censorship himself.

    ~Sean Garrigan

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    I always double up with laughter when I see the words: ‘It just keeps getting worse,’ in a headline of a UD article, and can’t wait to read the latest expose of what has always been pellucidly clear to those with eyes to see.

    The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on.

  5. 5
    OldArmy94 says:

    Hey, no sweat. The Darwinists can do the 1984-thing and pretend they’ve been telling us all along how optimized the retina is for vision, thanks, of course, to evolution’s blind tinkering.

  6. 6
    humbled says:

    2009 Richard Dawkins asserts confidently that most of the genome is junk, just as Darwinism predicts! What an embarrassment to Darwin doubters!

    2012 Richard Dawkins asserts confidently that most of the genome is not junk, just as Darwinism predicts! What an embarrassment to Darwin doubters!

    “I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.” (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    This is similar to the junk DNA claim. The more we investigate, the more we realize their “settled science” is not so settled. Betting against design often means a person ends up with egg on their face. However, new information such as this will have no effect whatsoever on their faith. They will just ramp up their faith and attribute it all to the marvels of evolution – even though they have absolutely no idea of how it came to pass.

    I just wish we could test these fantastic claims of evolutionists. “Evolution did it” tells us nothing. There is no difference between that and the “God did it” claims of ID and creationists. But, I certainly think the award for “best explanation” definitely goes to the ID/creationist side because Intelligence as a Cause makes sense.

    If only these “scientific” claims could be tested! But alas, the limits of historical science prevent that. It allows them to shamelessly claim whatever they want because they know they are not accountable for their claim. It can’t be tested.

    We can do further research and show good design, layers of complexity, and amazing efficiency, but in the end, if a person still insists on believing in the marvelous powers of chance mutations and other random processes, we cannot stop them.

  8. 8
    tjguy says:

    crev.info has a good discussion of this article here:

    <codehttp://crev.info/2015/02/backward-wiring-of-eye-retina-confirmed-as-optimal/

    Here is an excerpt:

    Perhaps the best proof that retinas are well-designed is shown by attempts to mimic them. PhysOrg tells about attempts at one institution to create “image sensors that that behave like biological retinas.” The interviewee says, “Our sensor, on the other hand, is based on the ‘Dynamic vision sensor’ (DVS) principle, which is itself inspired by the way biological retinas work.” It’s very hard to imitate, though. “Well naturally real biological retinas are more complex, with many different types of pixels (cells) which are also communicating with their neighbours,” he explains. “Such properties would be very complicated or impossible to develop with standard CMOS technology.”

    How, then, could a blind process of evolution come up with an image sensor vastly superior to what our top-notch engineers are capable of designing with purpose and planning?

    Evolutionists always play the heads-I-win tails-you-lose strategy. If it’s non-optimal, evolution wins. If it’s optimal, evolution wins. They’ve designed their rhetorical bag of tricks to be ready for any circumstance.

    This was a prime case of dysteleology in their repertoire that has been shot out of their hands. Don’t trust their hand-waving antics to explain it away as a result of “evolutionary baggage.” Their baggage is empty.

    Solomon, the wisest of men, said, “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Proverbs 20:12).[Is there really any more satisfying explanation than this?!]

    It took humans almost 3,000 years to see how: that God designed the structure of the eye to reduce scattering and concentrate the light onto the photoreceptors for optimum vision. Our response should be humble worship, not storytelling about blind processes creating sight.

  9. 9
    Kaz says:

    BTW, I meant to send the comments I made at “KazFebruary 28, 2015 at 7:01 am” to the moderators privately, but couldn’t find a means of contacting them on the forum. Since McGrath complained about censorship here, I thought it was fitting that they be aware of McGrath’s own censorship.

    ~Sean

Leave a Reply