Since we’ve already discussed how complex and phenomenal the human brain is, let’s discuss the human eye. To truly comprehend the intricacy and high development of the eye, Grant Jeffrey suggests we need to understand the function of the retina. He says:
“The retina lines the back of the eye and acts as a type of film, receiving the actual image composed of light photons passing through the iris, cornea, and eye fluid. Your retina is thinner than paper, yet its tiny surface (only one inch square) contains 137 million light-sensitive cells. Approximately 95 percent of these cells are rods that can analyze black-and-white images, while the balance of approximately seven million cone cells analyze color images. Each of these millions of cells is separately connected to the optic nerve, which transmits the signal to your brain at approximately three hundred miles an hour. The millions of specialized cells in your eye can analyze more than one million messages a second and then transmit the data to the brain.”
How does the retina contain 137 million light-sensitive cells? Why do 95 percent of those cells analyze black-and-white images? Why isn’t it 90 percent? Or 85 percent? How was it set to 95 percent? Who set it? Why is it only five percent analyze color images? Why not 10 or 20 percent? Why do these cells that are connected to optic nerves transmit the signal at around 300 miles per hour? How can the cells transmit the information that fast? How can millions of specialized cells analyze more than one million messages a second? That is astonishing! Scientists need to answer these kinds of questions. That’s the purpose of science. Did these facts result by accident, by random, or by design? It seems to me that scientists need to answer all these questions. Don’t you agree?
Scientists cannot simply punt the ball, as they say in football. It’s not their job to punt but to face the questions and answer them. That means they have to study the issues and perform experiments or do research to find the answers. However, they can’t seem to answer them, can they? It appears to be beyond their skills and abilities to answer straight-forward questions like these aforementioned questions. To simply deny that a superior intelligent being might be the cause of these things is easier to do, but it is not scientific, not rational, and not acceptable to most people. In science, some people feels it is necessary to prove that God exists. However, it is easier to offer evidence that God exists than it is to prove that He doesn’t exist. If there is no God or intelligent being, they need to prove that just as much as it is necessary to prove the reverse is true, but they can’t. Who can? Can you or I?
Gary R. Lindberg 