Unveiling Divine Design: Debunking Evolution's Flaws

Refuting Evolution: Chapter 7 - 'Bad Design' is Evidence of Leftovers from Evolution

In the book Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 7 discusses the argument put forth by evolutionists that 'bad design' in nature is evidence of evolutionary leftovers. These examples include phenomena such as 'junk DNA,' vestigial organs, and imperfections in the eye.

The Inverted Eye Argument

One example cited by evolutionist Kenneth Miller is the claim that the eye has 'profound optical imperfections,' which supposedly point to blind natural selection and tinkering during evolution. However, Miller fails to provide a step-by-step explanation for how the retina could have evolved. Instead, his argument serves as an attack on a Designer, which contradicts his own belief in a Darwinian version of 'god.'

Miller specifically mentions the backwardly wired vertebrate retina as evidence of a flawed design. He claims that the nerves interfere with images and that the so-called 'blind spot' is a significant problem. However, these assertions have been previously refuted.

To make such claims without understanding the intricacies of eye function and anatomy is misleading. In reality, if any engineer were to design something as remarkable as the human eye, they would likely receive a Nobel Prize. The vertebrate eye possesses incredible versatility, including color perception, high resolution, adaptation to varying light intensities, and night vision. Challenging Miller and PBS producers to design a better eye that meets all these requirements while considering embryonic development constraints would demonstrate the complexity of such a task.

The sensitivity of the retina, which can detect a single photon of light, cannot be improved upon. It also has an impressive dynamic range of 10 billion to one, allowing it to function effectively in intensities ranging from low light to bright sunlight. This surpasses even the best specialist equipment available today. The retina also showcases advanced signal processing capabilities, such as edge extraction, which enhances object recognition. Simulating the processes that occur in the retina would require an immense amount of computing power, far beyond what our best supercomputers can achieve. The eye's analog computing system is elegant and efficient, outperforming human technology once again.

Ophthalmologist Dr. George Marshall addresses the claim of the retina being wired backward, explaining that the nerves cannot go behind the eye due to the need for space reserved for the choroid. The choroid supplies necessary blood flow to the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), a metabolically active tissue involved in photoreceptor regeneration and heat absorption. The transparent nature of the nerves allows them to coexist with the surrounding vitreous humor and have minimal interference with image formation. In fact, any alleged improvements to the retina's design would have no impact on its resolution because light diffraction at the pupil is the limiting factor.

Cephalopod eyes, often cited as evidence of a better-designed eye with nerves behind the receptor, do not possess superior visual capabilities compared to humans. Additionally, their eye structure differs significantly from vertebrate eyes and is more akin to a compound eye with a single lens.

Addressing Other Alleged 'Bad Design' Arguments

Evolutionists often present other examples of 'bad design,' such as vestigial organs and so-called 'junk' DNA, to support their claims.

The Panda's 'Thumb'

The panda's thumb has long been touted as evidence of evolution rather than intelligent design. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that there is nothing clumsy about the panda's design. The so-called 'thumb' is an integral part of an elaborate grasping structure that enables pandas to strip leaves from bamboo shoots. Claims that it represents a non-designed contraption are mere distractions from the real question: evolution fails to explain how life could start in a pond and result in a complex creature like a panda.

'Junk' DNA

Evolutionists often label newly discovered sections of DNA without known functions as 'junk' DNA, suggesting they are remnants of evolution. For instance, organisms more complex than bacteria possess exons, which code for proteins, as well as non-coding introns. The intricate machinery known as a spliceosome removes the introns and joins the exons to form messenger RNA (mRNA), which is then translated into proteins. It is illogical to assume that more complex organisms would evolve such elaborate machinery if the introns were truly useless. Natural selection would favor organisms that don't waste resources on processing a genome filled with supposedly junk DNA. In reality, non-coding DNA serves various vital functions, including genome structure regulation, gene expression control, imprinting, and facilitating rapid post-Flood diversification. Mutations in introns can have detrimental effects on gene expression and lead to diseases and cancers.

Dr. John Mattick proposes that introns and their corresponding non-coding RNA 'negatives' play a crucial role in a complex genetic network. This network involves interactions between introns, DNA, mRNA, and proteins. Introns serve as connection points or nodes within this network, enabling multi-tasking and parallel processing. The ability to control the order in which genes are switched on and off allows for the development of diverse multicellular organisms from a single fertilized egg. Mattick's theory suggests an evolutionary origin for this system; however, it aligns better with a biblical framework where the complex splicing machinery was present in the fertilized egg, allowing for the development of diverse life forms from embryos.

While evolutionists present a long list of examples of 'bad design,' none withstand scrutiny when examined closely.

Why This Matters

Understanding the arguments put forth by evolutionists regarding 'bad design' is crucial for Christians who seek to defend their faith and engage in meaningful discussions about creation and evolution. By refuting these claims and showcasing the incredible design found in nature, believers can demonstrate the reasonableness of a Creator and strengthen their own convictions.

Think About It

Consider the complexity and functionality of the human eye. Reflect on how it surpasses any human-made technology in terms of sensitivity, dynamic range, and signal processing capabilities. What does this reveal about the nature of the Designer behind such intricate designs?