As part of their campaign to convince themselves of their scientific virtue, creationists publish a number of supposedly scientific and scholarly journals through which to disseminate their priceless [value = $0.00 = priceless] mental ruminations. One of these publications is *Creation Magazine*, aka *Creation ex nihilo*, whose March-May 1996 [Vol. 18 No. 2] issue contained, on pp. 38-40, a "feature article" titled SEEING BACK TO FRONT by Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S. First, a bit of background on author Wieland from the trailer --
"Dr Wieland is managing director of Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane, Australia. He founded Creation magazine, and writes and speaks extensively on creation and evolution."One immediately wonders about the legitimacy of Wieland's use of the title "Dr", since he seems to lack the academic pedigree usually associated with that title. No MD, PhD, etc. Perhaps the "M.B.", whatever it is, is a doctorate level award, and is earned rather than honorary. Given the creationist penchant for misrepresenting academic qualifications and purchasing diplomas from obscure mail-order institutions with POB addresses, I remain skeptical.
I also note that our own noted creationist echo participant, Laurie Appleton, posts from a Brisbane board. Coincidence? I think not.
Wieland's piece begins with a rhetorical question -- "Are evolutionists right when they say our eyes are wired the wrong way?" He then scolds evolutionists for praising "the very widely read book The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins" which contends that the nerve fiber arrangement in the human retina is less than optimal.
Unable to resist snide, ad hominem remarks, Wieland describes Dawkins as "An Oxford zoologist who claims to have been a Christian before he really understood the implications of evolution, Dawkins is an outspoken opponent of creation and the supernatural in general."
The implication here is that Dawkins "claims to have been a Christian" but must be lying. True Christians, Wieland and ilk would assure us, are creationists.
After a brief description of the structure of the eye and Dawkins' critique of its design, Wieland continues
"Yet an intelligent Creator designing the eye to function immediately would not have left such marks of illogical design imperfection, we are told.Wieland's innate overwhelming modesty no doubt causes him to neglect mention of the audacity of fundie nutcakes who claim to be sole possessors of the absolute eternal Truth.However, those many people who have been swept along by Dawkins' argument should have first paused to see the breathtaking audacity of the claim."
Given the fact that the axons of the sensory cells [rods and cones] of the retina exit toward the front, Wieland insists that
"There is in fact no evidence at all that having this layer of nerve fibres (which are largely transparent) in front of the receptors significantly blocks, distorts or diffracts the incoming light in any way."The quote is footnoted to an article by Richard Lumsden [identified only as a "biologist", without further disclosing or specifying his pedigree], 'Not So Blind a Watchmaker', in [big surprise] *Creation Research Society Quarterly*, Vol. 31, June 1994, pp. 13-21.
A brief communication with an ophthalmology professor at a local university medical school indicates that Wieland's contention that the nerve fibres are "largely transparent" is false. They are transparent in much the same way monofilament fishing line is transparent, and are arranged in a mesh that is essentially transparent in the same way as ordinary window screen. They block and diffract light in much the same way. The view through the screen seems clear enough until you remove it.
Wieland then tells us that
"In any case, the eye works beautifully; a design which merely seems 'odd' by our assessment cannot logically constitute proof of evolution or evidence against creation."Dawkins, of course, never claims to offer "proof of evolution"; he merely offers less than optimal features of the human eye as evidence against intelligent design.
Without citing a source, Wieland says
"The human eye actually discriminates better in indirect, lower intensity light, so the intervening layer acts as a filter, minimizing excessive light-scattering."Unfortunately for that contention, the axons scatter light and obscure detail rather than minimizing scattering -- an effect that can be demonstrated with a piece of window screen, nylon stocking or similar mesh material. Furthermore, textures are most easily perceived in high intensity light that strikes the textured object at an oblique angle [approximately 45 degrees to the subject plane is a good starting point] -- a fact that any reasonably competent technical photographer could have revealed to the esteemed "Dr" Weiland. Indirect [thus highly diffused] lighting is used by portrait photographers precisely because it obscures details that are commonly regarded as flaws -- wrinkles, scars, zits, hickies, etc.
The forgoing objections are trivial compared to those that can be raised to Wieland's assertion that the axon layer
"... also filters the short-wave ultraviolet (potentially cancer-causing) light."In the first place, according to the medical literature, the lens of the normal adult eye filters UV, preventing it from reaching the retina, where Wieland claims it is filtered by the axons. The following section from the abstract of the article *Light damage to the eye* by Roh and Weiter in the Journal of the Florida Medical Association [1994 Apr; 81(4):248-251] makes it explicit
Recent epidemiologic studies are showing an association between long-term sunlight exposure and ocular diseases such as cataracts, age-related macular degeneration, pterygium and climatic droplet keratopathy. Furthermore, the role of photosensitizers contributing to light-induced ocular damage needs to be kept in mind. The ocular hazard from photosensitizing drugs and sunlight in general is greatest in aphakic eyes that have lost their natural ultraviolet filter (the ocular lens) and in young children, whose own lenses readily transmit ultraviolet light.There is also no evidence in the literature that UV is filtered by the axons, and a number of studies in the ophthalmology journals demonstrating non-cancerous retinal damage [macular degeneration, e.g.] from exposure to UV as cited above. Thus, even if UV is filtered by the axons in aphakic eyes, it's poorly. There is no established causal relationship between UV exposure and ocular cancers such as uveal melanoma.
One major danger to the eyes from UV is cataracts, from which the
axon layer obviously offers no protection at all. Weiland's
Giving the esteemed "Dr" more credibility than he deserves and
assuming that the axons do indeed filter UV, we can postulate
that a competent designer should have had the axons exit via the
exterior surface of the cornea, in order to protect against
cataracts! Bring on the clowns! The human eye as designed by Rube
Goldberg!
The most obvious verifiable cancer risk from UV exposure is
melanoma [skin cancer], especially in fair-skinned individuals.
Thus, even if Herr Wieland's great designer designed the human
eye in such a way as to filter UV with the axon layer and thus,
presumably, prevent cancer of the retina, said designer neglected
the demonstrably far greater risk of skin cancer, while doing a
rotten job of protecting the retina via the axons and sacrificing
the cornea to cataracts as a sideshow. What a magnificent
designer!
So, if the eye was designed, perhaps it was by Charles Lutwidge
Dodgson's "itinerant drunken architect, who took his inspiration
from a tea chest"[1].
Wieland's article displays a characteristic that is so pervasive
in creationist literature that it's effectively a trademark.
Although he discusses Dawkins' critique of the human eye in *The
Blind Watchmaker*, all of Wieland's Dawkins references are to
secondary sources -- an article on page 149 in the Sydney Sunday
Telegraph, September 26, 1993, titled "Mother Nature, the
Imperfect Designer", and the aforementioned Lumsden piece in
CRSQ.
What is it that seems to prevent creationists from reading and
citing directly from the original sources they presume to
criticize? Talk about [to borrow famous esteemed creationist "Dr"
Carl Wieland's phrase] "sheer audacity".
1. This reference is so obscure I bet $10.00US that none of you
can dig it out and report back on it before Xmas 1998 CE.
