Evolutionists have claimed there is massive amount of evidence of “poor design” thus it has to evolved naturally. The likes of Dawkins (who is a well known militant atheist) points to the inverted eye as an example of a “poor design.”
Asking militant atheists is one thing, ask an ophthalmologist is another. This notion of an eye should be wired backwards is nonsense. The eye couldn’t be wired backwards because there is something already there which is very important. It’s called the choroid which provides a much needed blood supply for the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE).
So the nerves have to go in front rather than from behind. Now Richard Dawkins in his proposal which I call “the back wired eye design” is supposed to be better than the current one but it has two major problems…
1) The choriod which would block the wiring from behind the eye would need to moved to the front of the eye. The choriod being moved in front of the eye would cause hemorrhaging because the choriod is opaque.
2) Photorecptors would not be in contact with RPE and choriod. This would disable our eyes from absorbing heat, which would give us eye loss for many weeks if not months every time we look at a bright object.
No, the back wiring of an eye is not better than the front wiring of an eye. Next time you see an ophthalmologist ask about an eye being wired from behind being better instead of the current front wiring design. See if your ophthalmologist says it’s a better design that way…If you want bring up the arguments that I point out about the Richard Dawkins proposed eye design, go right ahead. See which one is more logical and better.
Quite frankly, I wonder if Richard Dawkins ever consulted with an eye expert before making his proposal. And if he had, I would be curious to know who they were. The best approach would have been talking to an number of experts. The evolutionist inverted eye argument holds no weight in substance. It’s a design that doesn’t work.