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 extensive list 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)
Quote 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. (Lol.)
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.
Of course I appreciate that I don't go into assessing whether the eye is designed in specific areas as such by listing successful things.
I am mostly highlighting the them that seems to accompany all "bad design" arguments, and the theme seems to be to evaluate the one area the evolutionist thinks is badly designed like the panda's thumb, but to ignore the panda itself.
After all a panda would have eyes that likely does all of these things, too given it is a mammal.
In terms of how good the eye is as a design, we should note some things.
1. A truly qualified, "bad design" can be shown wherever it was found, to require a designer as a cause.
2. The eyeball has all of the usual features of intelligent design.
Now I shall explain that list; legs have the end goal or apobetic, of walking. However there is specified complexity because the soft and hard tissues are in the specifically correct locations. The design itself is correct because weight is distributed from the heal to the toe using the correct soft/hard parts that are also the specifically correct shapes to achieve the goal. The correct fluid material (blood) energises the muscles to make it function, with the electrical signals to the nerves to activate them. This wouldn't work if the bones were cartilage and the soft tissue was wood. If the skin is cut the clotting cascade begins. (contingency planning)
We can say the same thing for a human innovation. The car also has all of the correctly shaped materials of the correct substance, such as fuel to combust in the engine, or brake fluid. The chassis isn't made of jello. The parts are also correctly placed for specific goals that "match" with those designs. There is also contingency planning, if it goes dark you can put on the headlights, if it rains you can use windscreen wipers.
So that's the basics.
In other words if we cut away the semantics of the science issue, there is no rational reason for me to believe life is not designed, and if evolution was true I would not expect evolutionists would have to depend on the freckle on the beautiful woman because you would be falling over the examples of bad design, every other pair of legs, arms or anything else should be bad design given evolution is a beggar, not a chooser, it only selects that which survives, by random mutation it is not an engineer that sits there waiting for the perfect mutations to come along delivered by a postman.
Is is therefore REASONABLE to expect shoddy design EVERYWHERE. Joints that are clearly not viable because they don't operate smoothely! Eyes that don't moves smoothely, creaks and squeaks and lags and difficulty should be the norm.
That you have to go fishing for panda's thumbs rather gives the game away folks!