In terms of, "bad design", let's compare the claims of evolutionists and their list of bad design to the things the eye does well firstly I don't proclaim anatomical knowledge but have read a fair bit about the eye, I shall give a list of the things the eye does well as we would expect it to do if designed. (the point here is, if we are judging whether something is designed we must look at ALL OF THE DATA)
Surely that's something we can agree on as creationists and evolutionists, right? But the arguments of bad design by evolutionists don't consider all the data in my opinion.
So here is the list of some of the amazing things the eye does;
- Successful balance of rotational forces finely figured out to function "correctly". (we don't struggle to keep our eyes in position do we, like you may expect with a make-do design from a non-intelligent evolution process.
- Successful trochlea design enabling eye to be pulled in different directions mechanically and within a confined space.
- Correct ocular torsion.
- No staggered movement like with technology. Notice you can move your eyes so smoothly, they don't creak or squeak nor is there any waiting.
- successful light-penetration of nerve net through clever Muller cells that collect light from largest possible surface area of the retina.
- Successful refreshment of the photo receptors through the choroid.
- we can see in colour
- we have the software to take the elemental colours and interpret all of the subtleties thereof when merged.
- The lens and eyeball is self-washing, unlike when you have spectacles.
- We can change the focus of our eye, and see in immense detail and clarity.
- We can adjust to the dark by the pupil opening. (humans are diurnal not nocturnal so this would be more advantageous for nocturnal animals so the design seems to be limited but a cat's pupil opens fully which is why you see their eyes glowing, which is the layer behind the retina.)
- The eye lid can stop dust from entering our eye and it doesn't get heavy because it is the correct weight for the muscles.
- We have the exactly correct types of fluid in the eye such as the rhodopsin. It is very sensitive to light and perfect for low light conditions. (correct materials)
- correction of aberration.
- Neat, and beautiful structure.
- Array of glial cells successfull preserves acuity of images in human retina.
- Muller cells successfully remove the problem of, "noise" by directly transmitting light to the rods and cones.
- Muller cells tuned to visible region of spectrum to successfully minimize radiation and heat damage.
- The software in the brain to create vision,
These are some things a layman has gathered. (me) The operative word being, "some" since my knowledge of such things is very little. Just imagine the true size of that list!
Now let's look at the huge extensivelist of things the eye is badly designed to do according to evolutionists. (pardon the grammatical tautology)
- Blind spot. (Get ready to laugh, it represents 0.2% of the visual field.) (and the dunce award goes to...........Dawkins!)
- Wrongly wired retina (which anatomists have corrected people like Dawkins on, it actually isn't "wrong" nor does it cause any problems)
Dr Sarfati: Ophthalmologist Peter Gurney, in his detailed response to the question, Is the inverted retina really ‘bad design’?6, also addresses the blind spot. He points out that the blind spot occupies only 0.25% of the visual field, so Dawkins is exaggerating to try to call it a patch rather than a spot. Furthermore, it is far (15) from the visual axis, so that the normal visual acuity of the region is only about 15% of the foveola, the most sensitive area of the retina right on the visual axis. And having two eyes effectively means there is no blind spot. So the alleged defect is only theoretical, not practical. The blind spot is not considered handicap enough to stop a one-eyed person from driving a private motor vehicle.
CONCLUSION: What would our conclusion be here? Perhaps an analogy is required.
Imagine the most beautiful woman on earth walked in the building. "Perfect" is too much of a semantic soup we shall just say, "correct", she has correctly shaped everything pertaining to what most people would deem beautiful.
If someone piped up, "she has two small freckles therefore is ugly", wouldn't that be rather absurd?
The technical name is slothful induction fallacy, it's where your evaluation doesn't take into account where the majority of the evidence points.
I feel that happens with evolutionists like Dawkins that argue bad design. Not just in humans but in any particular organism. For example it would seem Gould considered the panda's thumb, but not the panda
And these are your great, superior minds of evolution!
P.S. I look at the names that respond to my posts. If I read certain names where I believe I will just get trolled, I don't read the post.
Also note I have not mentioned, "science", or, "God", as that isn't the point of the topic, my arguments for ID are arguments, I am not Stephen Meyer, meaning I am arguing ID outside of science like it has always been argued, as I don't accept the false modern belief that only scientific things have veracity, it is logical notation that decides how strong arguments are not science.