My paradigm

Well since so many things evolve, evolution could refer to practically anything. The evolution I want to talk about here is the biological one. But even there we encounter a need to be more specific. So lets start with some definitions:

• Biological evolution.
  This general term can be split up into two separate theories:
  
  • Evolution of life out of lifeless matter a.k.a. abiogenesis.
    This is the theory on how life evolved out of lifeless matter on earth.
  • Evolution of the different species a.k.a. origin of the different species. This is a group name for several other theories such as the theory of genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, genetic drift, and so on. These theories can be mainly categorized into three segments:
    
    • The theory of micro evolution progresses.
      How genetic drift trough variation and mutation creates new breeds of a certain specie that then grow larger in numbers trough survival of the fittest. 
    • The theory of macro evolution progresses.
      How mutations on a genetic level can cause new species.
    • The theory of common descent.
      How trough micro and macro evolution all existing creatures evolved out of the same ancestral  being. This is not a scientific theory but a historical one. In other words it doesn't tell us something about the nature of physics, or the physics of nature, instead it speculates on how the currently existing organisms have evolved in the past.

As you might have noticed evolution has been a hot topic for decades, ever since the beginning of it, and it continues to be widely discussed today. And all to often proponents of evolution like to create the illusion as if the debate on evolution is a debate of science vs. religion. But let's look at what's really at stake shall we?

The theistic agenda.
Let us say for the sake of argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution is true, how would that change the theist his paradigm? Well it wouldn't change a lot. Even in the worst case scenario that all turns out to be true, intelligent design (ID) still rescues religion. Like I explain here, our current scientific knowledge on causality still leaves more then enough room for divine powers to be at the source of it. So from that viewpoint  God creating species miraculously is just as much as an act of God as God creating them trough his habitual enforcement of physical law. So this means nothing really changes, at least not for Muslims. Christians on the other hand would have some problems, since their scripture includes specific details which would be rendered false by this. However the late Catholic pope John Paul did publish an open letter stating that these specific details from the book of genesis were added by the Catholic church when the Bible was compiled in order to answer questions that they weren't able to answer at that time.

The atheistic agenda.
Now, again for the sake of argument let us assume the opposite extreme, that tomorrow every single part of biological evolution turns out to be false. How would that alter the atheists paradigm? Well the atheist would have some major unsolved mysteries in his paradigm. Although some might be fine with that, others their paradigm might crumble. As it is today, the misuse of randomness as a counter against the anthropic argument is already a bit of a stretch, as explained here. But if on top of that, the whole lot of theories under biological evolution fall away; the counter simply can't be stretched that far. The atheistic paradigm would have a huge gap there. I argue atheists would automatically start to formulate their personal beliefs of what did happen. Now these beliefs may vary from alien conspiracy theories, to philosophical abstract visions or classical religious views. Nevertheless each self aware atheist will start to wonder about this and think about alternative explanations. I think this qualifies as a major change of paradigm. And that is something most people do not like. Changing paradigms is scary due to the uncertainty of what the change will lead to. The human psyche has a natural fear for everything that is unknown. So changing paradigms means that during the transition you need to consider your whole world as unknown. Not an easy thing to do.

Like I said, all to often proponents make it look as if anyone who disagrees with any part of biological evolution; is someone who disagrees with science itself. An often used comparison is that evolution is just as much of a "theory" as gravity is. But how much weight does that argument carry? Well to avoid sweeping generalizations, let's consider the current status of each part:

Abiogenesis	Hypothesis which is incomplete, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Micro evolution	Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution	Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent	Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

People who feel I have made an error here and think that Abiogenesis and common descent are either testable, falsifiable or proven,.. Feel free to present your case on my forums.

So my personal beliefs are that, several species were created metaphysically, and that those ones after that they were created all evolved into an even larger variety of creatures. I trust the scientific accuracy of the theory of micro and macro evolution, but I argue that they simply don't cut it to fill in common descent. As for abiogenesis, there are many scientific objections why that is unlikely.

Now getting back to the comparison with denial of gravity, if it is directed to someone who denies the possibility of micro and macro evolution, then I agree completely. To deny them is similar to denying gravity. If however someone denies Abiogenesis and common descent -like I do- then the comparison is inapt. These two are not scientific theories, denying them does not go in against science. Now often the reply I get is that I'm simply compromising the parts that are proven, and blindly deny those that are not. A witty reply, but another way to look at it is that the parts of biological evolution that could be considered as somewhat incompatible with religious doctrine are "coincedently" the same that are not proven. Both arguments however are emotive. From a rational perspective both parties would have to agree that the validness of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another, not even if they are in the same field or have overlapping parts. Each theory should be judged on its own merits. 

First one on the list is abiogenesis. Most evolutionists will avoid this theory claiming it is not a part of evolution. That is why I started of by pointing out the importance of correct terminology. Abiogenesis is not a part of "the evolution of the different species" but it is a part of "biological evolution". Well actually, as stated before, since there are a lot of gaps here, this is closer to hypothesis rather then theory. Some scientists speculate that it happened, but they failed to explain how it happened. Since, it's strictly speculation at this point, no proof, no falsifiability and no testability; in all common sense, we should even label this as science. The confusion though, is that the hypothesis does have a scientific character though, but let us take a closer look at that.

The biggest challenge to the theory is DNA or RNA. Even the most primitive life forms -viruses- consist out of RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no knowledge of previous life can be past down. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first being to have it also. Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is speculating on how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter. But we encounter a paradox a bit similar as the chicken or the egg problem. Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids: RNA and DNA. This information is used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on proteins to direct many of the reactions required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox. Nucleic acids are made with the help of proteins and proteins are made with the presence of their corresponding nucleotide sequence. So which of those two was first? The chicken or the egg?

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and  hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances harmful to life were mixed with it. Next to that the experiment does not account for all required amino acids to make proteins, and the experiment also does not explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as right handed isomers, whereas only one type is common in biology.

Now, often people reply that this experiment was just a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true. But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would be 200m or 300m even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run a distance of 100m on that longer track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance. Likewise; the many years that earth existed does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. In other words, the amount of time available, as long as it is enough, has no bearing on the chemical possibility of it happening. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.

But that's just the beginning next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of criticism can also be formed as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. It's quite destructive. No oxygen however, means no atmosphere and also no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it. And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

Another angle to looking at it -panspermia- is even more far fetched. Rather then just only lightning striking continually for a week on the same spot, it speculates that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But the presence of peptides still doesn't explain creation of life. Furthermore not any meteor fits the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply shifts the problem away from earth rather then answering it.

So I think you would see by now that the process is unlikely, not because it has a number of different possible outcomes, but rather because the circumstances allegedly giving this outcome are insufficient to explain the process as self-evident.

Just as with abiogenesis, common descent is closer to hypothesis rather then theory. And just like abiogenesis, it's strictly speculation at this point. There's no proof, no falsifiability and no testability. The hypothesis is based on the sweeping generalization that since some organism evolved from one another, all must have evolved from the same one! This is obviously a logical fallacy.  In fact one could argue that since this theory speculates on what happened in the past; that this is actually a historical theory build on different scientific theories rather then a scientific theory itself!

Let us continue where I left off in abiogenesis. The very first lifeforms; was it a virus, or a one-celled organism. If it was a virus, how was it able to be sustained without a host for long enough until it evolved into a one-celled organism? If it did evolve into a one-celled organism, how come the one-celled organism wasn't immediately killed by the presence of the viruses. Viruses generally drain cells empty. Some might not kill animals or people, but that's only because we have enough cells, and can spare the cells that are killed by viruses, and because we have the mechanisms to defeat the virus. But how did this first one-celled organism survive among it's un-evolved brothers and sisters? But more importantly, how would a virus evolve into a one-celled organism. Even the most simple one-celled organism is incredibly complex when looked at from a chemical level. It requires very specific molecules to be build in very specific manners at very specific places. It's like suggesting that a fully operative factory with working personal included was created from a tornado passing trough a scrapyard and then passing trough a cemetery. Even if the explanation brings you the right components, the tornado lacks the methodology to make those parts into a working plant with living operators. I said "even if", because neither abiogeneses nor evolution can even account for all the necessary parts, let alone explain how they were used together to build a cell.

A second problem is a known problem recently coined as "irreducible complexity". This refers to an organism or part of an organism that is complex in the sense it has multiple components, components which by themself have no function. Because of survival of the fittest, useless components will not evolve. So the only way to acount for all components trough evolution, is if they were created all at once. That is why the organism is thus irreducibly complex; it has to have been created at once as it is, not in multiple steps. some evolutionists have tried to counter this argument by suggesting that components could have been borowed from other organisms. However this doesn't cut the mustard. Only some of the components which need to be acounted for in organisms are shared with other organisms. Next to that those shared components are often supposedly borrowed form yet another irreducible complex organism. So in the end this still doesn't explain how a chemical molecule, which has no function when isolated, could have been selected trough the process of survival of the fittest. A much more detailed explanation of this, can be found in this movie: Intelligent Design - Unlocking the mysteries of life.

This irreducibly complexity does not occur only on the chemical level, but can also be found on a much larger level; with organelles and organs. Although I do grant that most organs and organelles could evolve into more complex organs and organelles, at some point, the very first version of most of them would have some degree of irreducible complexity to do what it is supposed to do. A common case discussed in this line of argument is the eye. For the eye to do what it's suppose to, it needs several components, a lens, muscles to adjust it, light receptors, nerves, and so on... Recently a reply has been formulated by evolutionists that speculates on how mollusks could have evolved from eye-less to seeing, by intermediate steps. The speculation goes that it went from pigment rich skin, light sensitive spots, light sensitive cavities, light sensitive cavities with liquid in it and finally to light observing with liquid and a lens. And some of the needed intermediate steps have been found among the mollusk. However the speculation is incomplete. For the theory to work; each change should have been possible from a single genetic mutation. So is it possible for a snail to go from light sensitive to light observing cells and at the same time evolve the necessary neural changes for the light impulses to be registered, let alone to make sense? Some might reply, that they could have adapted to the new type of impulses. But somebody who claims that doesn't really understand what adaptation means. Adaptation in biology, is a variation on survival of the fittest. It explains how a feature can be preserved after it mutated. It does not account for the origin of the new feature. So replying to me that they could have adapted is like saying there was a secondary mutation to take care of it. Which brings me back to my original statement, that the organ is irreducible complex since it would have to rely on multiple mutations at once. Similar arguments can be made for all other steps, as well as for other organs and organelles. But more importantly, not only does common descent speculate that an organ like the eye evolved naturally against all odds, it also speculates that this unlikely event occurred multiple times for multiple species. The mollusk for example, are speculated to be from a different branch as the insects; so the evolution of mollusks eyes cannot be used to account for insect eyes, which are a lot more complex by the way. The same goes for other species like mamels; who allegedly formed eyes completely independently.

And we can find irreducible complexity at yet an even larger scale when considering abilities of species. Certain abilities, like flying, breathing underwater, breathing above water, digesting, reproducing trough cell division, reproducing trough male and female, all these abilities rely on multiple organs and characteristics. That is to say that some animals, or at least some type of animals like fish, bird, mamels, reptiles,... are irreducibly complex. They requires multiple organs and features to do what they generally do. A single of those features does not have a function, and the ability requires multiple features.

Next to making comparisons, some try to enter the fossil record as proof for common descent. The argument goes, that fossils show up in certain layers of ground which in term are linked to certain eras in time. If you then make a timetable of which time the fossilized creatures lived in, it matches the timetable that common descent proposes. Well first of all, that's hardly any proof, all it does is proof which creatures lived at which time, it doesn't proof which evolved into which. Creationists might just as well claim that this proves at which time certain animals were created. The fossil record does not favor common descent over creation. In fact quite the opposite can be said, the fossil has many issues that reflect bad on common descent. Like the cambrian explosion. An era where there's a sudden high concentration of entirely new species, as opposed to the slower pace of evolution in other eras. Another problem are the large number of missing links. There are so many proposed intermediate species missing, that some scientists have started suggesting that rather then evolution trough slow steps, there must have been "jumps" to. But that's of course very unlikely. A mutation that carries benefit is in itself unlikely, many mutations at once that carry some benefit is close to impossible. Other than that it needs to be noted that there's a lot of controversy regarding the accuracy of dating fossils. I wouldn't go as far as saying that it's all a hoax, like some Christian creationists claim. But lets just say it does indeed require a lot of work.

A simular argument, is that if you make a tree of heritage, based on similarities in DNA between creatures, then you have more or less a similar tree to the tree of descent that common descent proposed. But this information is actually false. First of all, only the genome of 4 animals has been decoded so far. (Humans, chimp, mouse and fly). So we're far from making a thorough comparison, more detail about comparing DNA is in the next section. Basically what they compare are karyotypes, not DNA. But even then, the argument is a false. When DNA was discovered, and they started comparing karyotypes, the three they got contradicted the earlier proposed three of descent rather then conforming it! It was a fresh start for evolution and they had to revise the whole theory. So the current three of descent is based on this comparison of karyotype, and not confirmed by it!

Evolution of mankind is a very specific and dominant part of common descent. Although several proposed links by the three of common descent can provide interesting debates, I feel that this one is most appropriate for two reasons. The firs reason is that it is most relevant in this context of religion. The second reason being that it is the alleged link in the chain that is most studied and documented out of all the links in common descent. Thus it provides for a much more in depth analysis. Some people are under the impression that this part of common descent is as good as proven, but that is far from true. I'll attempt to discuss some of the commonly used, flawed arguments.

Argument from comparison:
This is perhaps the most dominant argument. But it is a slippery slope. The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:

* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
The false claims from Richard Leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.

* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct African ape.

* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenya. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skull contents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skull contents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aboriginals)! So there is no reason to assume these skeletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excellent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assume they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aboriginals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in school handbooks are just indulgence into imagination, remember we've only found skeletons.

* Homo sapiens Neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of Mexico writes: detailed study of the skeleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intellect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these missing links that they start to see things that aren't there. Also, we need to remember species have both a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype refers to the genes a specie carries, both the dormant as well as the active. The phenotype refers to the physicals characteristics a specie has. To give an example, a person can have the genotype for both blue as for brown eyes, in other words he has both the genes that causes eyes to be blue, as the gene that causes eyes to be brown.  However he will only have one phenotype, he will have brown eyes since the gene for brown eyes is dominant over the gene for blue eyes. the reason I bring this up, since evolution takes place on a genetic level, it seems crucial that we'd compare genes, rather then say comparing skulls. I have already illustrated how easy a bias can influence a researcher in comparing morphology of skulls.

The stereotype reply you get to this is: well chimps do have 99% of there DNA in common with mankind right? Isn't that comparing genotype rather then phenotype? My answer is; "No, that is false information!". There is not a 99% similarity between human and Chimp DNA! In fact you will find that even two brothers will have less then 99% similarity except for of course identical twins. The 99% similarity is not with DNA, but with karyotypes! So what's the difference? DNA are long strings of Nucleic acids. However these strings are not stored in the nucleus like spaghetti's in a casserole. Instead the strings are wound up and held into position by histones to form Chromosomes. When you align all chromosomes of a specie straightened out in a row, you have what we call a karyotype. So when you compare karyotypes; what we are comparing is not really DNA. What you are comparing is the method in how DNA is packed. If chimps have similar karyotypes, that means they use histones in a similar method as we do, that does not mean we have similar DNA. In fact you could say that this comparison is just a comparison of phenotypes since the formation of histones is genetically decided. So comparing formations of histones makes just as much sense as comparing skulls rather then comparing genotypes.


Argument from ERV's:
ERV stands for Endogenous Retro Virus. This is a virus that has embedded itself into DNA and gets passed on generation after generation. We share some alleged ERV's with chimps. It is thus suggested as proof for our common descent, that we both must have originated from a specie that was infected by this virus. The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's but something completely different, or it could even be junk genes, byproduct. That is because a virus will rarely be embedded in it's complete form. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a woman who has a flu and the virus gets embedded and passed on to a fertilized egg cell. This is of course unlikely because the common flu virus is usually not located near the ovaries, but indulge me for the sake of argument and simplicity. The child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then? 

A second problem of the argument, is the slippery slope fallacy again. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for creationists. It is then a matter of simple causality; chimps and humans have ERV at similar loci due to similar proteins. In other words similar results by similar processes.

Argument from unintelligent design:
This isn't really scientific but rather philosophical. The argument goes like this: "Creation is flawed, in the sense that it's poorly designed. There are many shortcomings and imperfections. If we would have truly been created, we would have been perfect rather then imperfect." Now since the argument is philosophical rather then scientific, my reply to will be philosophical rather then scientific. Let this not reflect as a weakness of my counter; there are tons of things wrong with the premise. First of all, we need to look at the term perfection. Does it refer to an Utopian perfection, or rather as-good-as-it-gets kind of perfection? For those referring to an Utopian perfection, I gladly present my counter-arguments against the flawed argument from the paradox of omnipotence. For the other interpretation of imperfection, we have to note that judgment of perfection and imperfection is very subjective. For example, would perfection include immortality? what if it is our purpose to stay here only temporarily in the first place, wouldn't a mortal design then be more appropriate over an immortal one? Who's to say that we aren't perfect, in the sense that this is as good as it can be?  The only way to make this argument work, is to hypothesis an alternative design, and then illustrate the advantage such an alternative design would have over the current design. A completely different design from scratch is of course way to hard for our limited minds, let alone that we could do a meaningful comparison of such a design and the current. Therefor most proponents of this argument have restricted themselves to slight variation on the current design.

An example I have encountered in the past is the position of the vas deferens. The vas deferens is the duct that carries sperm to the ejaculatory duct. The problem with it is that it lies all the way around the ureter, which makes surgery at the prostate challenging. This is because during development, the testicles drop down, thus pulling the duct around the ureter. Now to this argument I reply,  bringing an alternative design is not as simple as making a drawing of how it should end up. If any proponents of unintelligent design feel that this alternative design is possible they should do a better job at defending their viewpoint and show us that this alternative is possible in the first place. In other words, show us how your design is workable, from genotype to phenotype, not only in phenotype. When this is done, and we have a full script, only then we can begin discussing which of the two designs is best and keep all circumstances under consideration. Now even if the alternative design turns out to be workable I suspect that the difficulties and complexity that it brings with them will outweigh the surgeon's convenience. Especially when you take in consideration the small percentage of people, from the dawn of mankind up until now, who ever have surgery done at the prostate.

A second example I have encountered in the past is the blind spot of the eye. Here even more then in the case of the vas deferens, I question the possibility of a design without it.  The blind spot is very intrinsic to the mechanism of the eye, and is an effect created by a very vital part of the eye. Designing an eye without a blind spot is thus very challenging. Furthermore, the blind spot of each eye is compensated by the second eye. So the "flaw" in design isn't really problematic if you look at the totality, a set of eyes. Also note that there is a difference between the optical blind spot -a gap in the vision of the eye created by a spot where there are no visual receptors due to the positioning of the nerves- and the blind spot of a vehicle -a space around the vehicle that is from the driver's position despite the use of mirrors- in case you were wondering.

Argument from useless design:
This is a bit similar to the argument of unintelligent design, but more simplistic. It argues that species have body parts that have no use, which is a waste. Vestigial organs they call them. Of course adding a useless part in a design isn't the same as dumb design, but it wouldn't be considered as smart either. However I argue that there are no useless body parts, and that every part of our body has a function. Several parts have been suggested by proponents. Although I grant that some of those suggested parts are not vital for survival, that doesn't mean they are completely useless. People can even live after limbs have been amputated, but that doesn't mean an extra arm is useless. The most common example is the coccyx (tail bone). The story goes this is a remnant of our tail-carrying brothers, which is now utterly useless. But that's far from the truth. No less than nine muscles are attached to that bone. Without the bone a lot of our current movements would no longer be possible. And we do use this bone on a regular basis. It is used for defecation and keeps organs in place.