Evolutionists Lose Human Eye Debate

How many times have creationists heard this from sources like the USS Clueless...”Occasionally I see creationists point to the human eye as a miracle of design, as if this somehow is evidence of divine origin for the human form. Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, the human eye is seriously suboptimal. It simply isn’t that good a design.” I would say, quite a number of times, especially from those like Kenneth Miller who is a Professor at Brown University who argues for signs of bad design which they say disproves creationism so they use the human eye as an example. Why? Because our eyes’ have photoreceptor cells which face away from incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them thus supposedly making it “suboptimal” (without showing how it could be improved) because it blocks some light.

What generally always happens with these arguments from evolutionists, they get shot down by advancements in science either by creationist scientists or by their own data or both. Sometimes it takes many years. The human eye debate has been written about and debated about for many years. Creationists as well as the modern intelligent design movement have been arguing for years that the human eye is well designed here are two examples the first one being from the modern intelligent design movement

“The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and resolution. The inverse wiring does not affect speed. Nor does it affect resolution, except for a tiny blind spot in each eye. You don’t usually notice it because your brain’s visual harmonization system easily compensates for the blind spot. You need to do special exercises to discover it. What about sensitivity? Sensitivity requires an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body, so they need lots of blood. But blood cells absorb light. In fact, if blood cells invade the retinal cells, irreversible blindness may result. By facing away from the light, retinal cells can be nourished by blood vessels that do not block the light. They can still be so sensitive that they respond to a single photon, the smallest unit of light.” -2008

The second one being strictly from ICR, one of the main websites that advocate creationism…

“Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a “verted” design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, theretinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.”

“The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a “steady stream of the vital molecule retinal” to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.”

As you know, evolutionists have been arguing that the human eye was designed poorly until now…Israel Institute of Technology, a think tank for evolution  says they have discovered why the human eye is wired backwards and it’s not because of a poor design…

“Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors…”

“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” Ribak added. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

Even before this research came out, their has been attempts to build image sensors that are base on its design of biological retinas. If retinas are really that poor in design, then why would engineers be trying to make image sensors that are based on the retinas design?    Since the research turned out to confirm creationism rather than evolution, researchers at Israel Institute of Technology has to bluff about its significance by claiming that “from a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye — a product of our evolutionary baggage — doesn’t make a lot of sense” is really confirmation of evolution…lol

Can you imagine if science came out with evidence of a bad design of the human eye and turned around and said, “Even though a bad design doesn’t make much sense, but this is a great product of creationism.” It wouldn’t be considered science right? Neither is the researchers view on evolution of the eye. These stories about evolution holds no scientific ground! We are blessed with amazingly designed eyes!

Has A Curvilinear Camera Surpassed Biology?

One of the most amazing inventions to date was announced by media outlets like science daily. A tiny camera with a versatile zoom which has the ability to enhance endoscopic imaging,  dubbed as “Robotics, Night Vision.”  It has been compared to the human eye but only better, while it true that human eyes do not have zoom lenses, how does this comparison hold up?

“The “eyeball camera” has a 3.5x optical zoom, takes sharp images, is inexpensive to make and is only the size of a nickel. (A higher zoom is possible with the technology.) While the camera won’t be appearing at Best Buy any time soon, the tunable camera — once optimized — should be useful in many applications, including night-vision surveillance, robotic vision, endoscopic imaging and consumer electronics.”

“We were inspired by the human eye, but we wanted to go beyond the human eye,” said Yonggang Huang, Joseph Cummings Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Mechanical Engineering at Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science. “


Does the original paper claim it’s an improvement over the human eye? In PNAS…”Mammalian eyes provide the biological inspiration for hemispherical cameras, where Petzval-matched curvature in the photodetector array can dramatically simplify lens design without degrading the field of view, focal area, illumination uniformity, or image quality.” Adding the invention of the zoom lens has gone beyond it’s design in nature.

Researchers sighted two cases in biology where animals have a kind of binary zoom: “in avian vision, where shallow pits in the retina lead to images with two fixed levels of zoom (50% high magnification in the center of the center of the field of view),” and “imaging properties occur, but in an irreversible fashion, during metamorphosis in amphibian vision to accommodate transitions from aquatic to terrestrial environments.”  The curvilinear camera unlike animal eyes, would be capable of continuous zoom. Does this mean it’s an improvement over the eyeball? The authors conclude…“Interestingly, biology and evolution do not provide guides for achieving the sort of large-range, adjustable zoom capabilities that are widely available in man-made cameras.”

Even if researchers find a way to improve the eye, they would indirectly be supporting the intelligent design of the creator. Reverse engineering gives glory to the Designer of what is being imitated. Despite their passing reference about evolution, its story about step by step accidents has nothing to do with the brilliant engineering of the eye. Human ingenuity can and does exceed biology all the time.  No animals can explore the sun, the moon, the solar system, deep space, or invent x-rays, harness energy where it produces artificial light so we can see at night. God gave humans the minds and hands to expand their biological capabilities!

Is The Human Eye A Bad Design or Good?

For quite some time, many years in fact, evolutionists like Dawkins who wrote a book, The Greatest Show On Earth…argued and mocked creationists that the human eye was obvious proof for evolution because it was based on a bad design. Dawkins and others have claimed the human eye’s nerves should have been wired in the back rather than the front.  Which ophthalmologist was he and others consulting while coming up with such an absurd hypothesis against creationism and intelligent design?

In back of the eye is the choriod which would block the wiring. In order to prevent that from happening and still be able to wire the eye from the back, the choriod would need to be moved to the front. This would cause hemorrhaging because the choriod is opaque. Also backward wiring would cause a disconnect with the photorecptors with RPE and choriod. It’s very important to have the connection because it would remove the eye’s ability to absorb heat which means we would go blind for weeks on end if we looked at bright light. So backwards wiring is not a better design for the human eye.

What about the human retina that appears to being placed in the eye backwards, is it still a bad design? Back in 2007, German scientists at Leipzig University discovered a layer of cells that act like another lens inside the eye, channeling the light right through the opaque layer and putting it right where it is needed.

The commentary reflects…

“They have demonstrated that light is collected and funnelled through long cells called Müller cells.  These work almost exactly like a fibre optic plate: a “zero-length window” that optical engineers can use to transmit an image without using a lens….Everyone thinks lasers are perfectly parallel, but this is not so,” [Andreas] Reichenbach continues.  “They do diverge.  The Müller cells behave as a lens, and collect all the light without any loss, just like an optical plate.

But normal optical plates have simple bundles of optical fibres that collect and transmit the light.  The researchers have discovered that the vertebrate eye has gone one step further and created a funnel shaped cell that allows more light to be collected at the surface of the eye….“Nature is so clever,” Reichenbach says.  “This means there is enough room in the eye for all the neurons and synapses and so on, but still the Müller cells can capture and transmit as much light as possible.”

It’s funny how they call an unthinking process, “clever” and it’s also interesting to note that some evolutionists are starting to come to grips with the fact that the human eye is a good design while others argued that it was only a makeshift correction as a result of natural selection. It doesn’t stop there as more discoveries have been made, one of which happened this year concerning these very Müller cells by a team the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa

“At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and “noise” that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye.  The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out.  This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear.”

“The researchers also found that light that had leaked out of one Müller cell was unlikely to be taken up by a neighbour, because the surrounding nerve cells help disperse it.”

“What’s more, the intrinsic optical properties of Müller cells seemed to be tuned to visible light, leaking wavelengths outside and on the edges of the visible spectrum to a greater extent. The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus.  Just as light separates in a prism, the lenses in our eyes separate different colours, causing some frequencies to be out of focus at the retina.”

“The simulations showed that Müller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus….”

We now know keeping photoreceptors in back near the blood vessels is a marvel of engineering design as it provides optical advantages. It’s performance is beyond our scope to duplicate. While evolutionists continue to argue on what they deem as a bad design (as they try to get inside God’s mind on motive) and a non-thinking process being able to improve a bad design, it cannot be rescued from the fact that what they are promoting is merely a science fiction story.