Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I disagree, I think you can ‘prove’ that the opposite design is better (I am using the word ‘prove’ a bit loosely here) without actually building it by applying logical arguments and by assuming that the basic laws of physics as they are currently understood are essentially correct.
Its not about the laws of physics. Its about a lot more than that. There are so many things involved in the eye, that getting light directly to the receptors is hardly the only consideration. Considering that we often like to wear sun glasses, one might think that allowing more light in might in fact be a bad thing. I don't know a whole lot about optics, but I suspect that if the retina was more sensitive then the iris would need to contract more which might result in a poorer focal range.
But even then it is not as simple as just eye layout. You must ask how the body builds itself, what proteins, hormones, DNA code etc are needed to make the eye grow in the right shape. Maybe it takes less DNA to do it this way. Less DNA means less chance of genetic diseases leading to blindness.
It just such a big equation that simply thinking that you know better is simply not enough.
Even the assumption that a better eye would be a good thing is just that - an assumption. Maybe God has a good reason for wanting us to have poor eyesight. More privacy at night for example. Maybe our eyesight gets worse as we age so that we don't notice our spouse getting uglier.
Or maybe he just wants us to suffer. If God exists, he could presumable stop malaria. So one must assume that he has good reasons for allowing suffering, and in fact if he designed malaria, he intended suffering - its part of the design.
Your claim that the eye doesn't do what you think it should do to in what you think is the best possible way does not in any way indicate that it is not designed to do something. At best it shows that it is not designed to do what you think it is should be designed to do.
Having said all that, I am an atheist and do think that evolution is the best explanation for the structure of the eye. I just don't think your line of reasoning is valid.