Eye piercing: Should the design match our preconceived assumptions?

Eye piercing: Should the design match our preconceived assumptions? In discussions of intelligent design theory, there is no objection as frequently raised as the objection of imperfection, which can be summed up in the following; if an intelligent party had designed life on Earth, it could have created another life of perfect design, without any obvious imperfections, and could have done so from the beginning, and this objection seems to have some popular appeal, but it is only a mirror image of Diogenes’s argument; what should be the case, therefore, is not the case. This objection has been echoed by prominent scientists and philosophers, but it has been thoroughly put forward by Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University: “Another way to respond to intelligent design is to examine complex biological systems carefully, looking for mistakes that no intelligent designer can make; because intelligent design works on solid ground, designed organisms should be able to carry out their tasks perfectly. The eye, the supposed model of intelligent design, has always given us the answer: we have already enriched the exceptional features of this organ, but we have not reviewed specific aspects of its design, such as the neural synaptic extensions of the photosensory units, these light-receptor cells, which are located in the retina, pass neurons to a series of cells connected between them, which in turn pass information to the optic nerve cells eventually, all the way to the brain. The intelligent designer, who deals with the elements of these synaptic extensions, will inevitably select the direction that achieves the best and highest visual quality, for example; no one can decide to place the neural connections in front of the receiving cells of light instead of behind the retina, thus preventing the light from reaching the receiving cells. But what is unbelievable is how to build a human retina! A major flaw is that synaptic extensions must enter directly through the retinal wall, transferring neurotransmitters from photoreceptor cells to the brain, and the result was a blind spot in the retina, an area where millions of neurons push sensory cells aside. This should not be understood as a suggestion that the eye is working poorly, but is a wonderful visual machine; it serves us well, but the key to intelligent design theory is not whether an organ or system is working well or not, but rather the basic planning of a bio-structural construction, the system is a clear product of the design. Miller’s talk reflected confusion and a clear fundamental ambiguity; the key to the study of intelligent design theory is not whether the basic planning of structural biological construction is a clear product of the occurrence of design. Inference of design occurrence in interacting systems is based on (monitoring irreducible complexity), which is at a high level of specificity and specialization. The central problem is that the objection always requires perfection! More clearly, a designer who has the ability to make better designs does not necessarily need to do so. For example, planned or built-in obsolescence is common in manufacturing, where it is intentional during the manufacture of the product; so that its use does not last, and it becomes undesirable after a certain period of time, although it may be valid, for reasons that have replaced the simplest goals of engineering excellence! The other problem with the imperfection argument is that it relies on a critical psychological analysis of the designer (unidentified); figuring out the reasons why a designer does this and doesn’t is almost impossible, unless the designer himself tells you about it. I could, for example, visit a gallery of modern art, to find things that are designed or mysterious (for example, for a reason that is not entirely mine). The reason to be interested in science is not to know the designer’s internal state of mind, but to “can one touch the design around him or not?” In a discussion about why aliens on other planets can build legal formations, which we can observe on the surface of the Earth, physicist Freeman Dyson wrote: “I don’t need to question the motives, who wants – and why – to do such things; why does the human race explode hydrogen bombs?!” When considering whether or not aliens will try to breathe life on other planets, Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel wrote: “Our understanding of the psychology of extraterrestrial societies is no better than our understanding of the psychology of terrestrial societies, it is quite possible that these extraterrestrial communities may be targeting other planets, for reasons quite different from those we have previously proposed.” These writers concluded in their writings that design can be manifested and touched in the absence of information about the designer's motives. The following problem is that proponents of the imperfection argument repeatedly use their psychological assessment of the designer as positive evidence that evolution is undirected. The conclusion can be written as a logical measurement: 1) The designer could have created the vertebrate eye without the blind spot. 2) The vertebrate eye has a blind spot. 3) The eye is the product of Darwinian evolution. It is precisely because of such a conclusion that the phrase "false result fallacy" was coined. There is no evidence in the scientific literature to show that mutation-dependent natural selection can produce an eye without a blind spot, or a blind spot, or a dry eye, or a lens, or a retina, or a rhodopsin, or a retinal! The author has come to his conclusion that this pro-Darwinist is based solely on his psychological sense of things, and how they should all be perceived. Kenneth Miller’s article was not published in Reader’s Digest, but it was published in Technology Review, and its audience of readers is, in fact, highly educated and sophisticated, because they are able to deal with abstract scientific concepts and follow difficult arguments, reaching consistent results. The idea that Miller presents these readers with an argument based on psychology and emotion, rather than solid natural science, gives a different impression of what is more common than intelligent design. (16) Miller, K. R. (1994) «Life's Grand Design,» Technology Review February/ March, pp. 29-30. (17) Dyson, J. F. (1966) «The Search for Extraterrestrial Technology» in Perspectives in Modem Physics, ed. R. E. Marshak, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 643-644. (18) Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. (1973) «Directed Panspermia,» Icarus, 19, 344. - Dr. Michael Behe. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2020-11-17 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/evolution-design/ثقب-في-العين-هل-يجب-أن-يطابق-التصميم-افتراضاتنا-المسبقة؟