In a now partially outdated passage because refers to the retina as whole, and leaves aside the acuity of the fovea, Miller (1978: 334) informs us that:

Theologians who use the argument from design as a proof of the existence of God frequently refer to the optical perfection of the eyeball. Ironically, this is the one part of the system where the argument from design falters, for the image projected on to the retina is so blurred and unsteady that if one tried to develop an ordinary film from it one would find it almost impossible to reconcile the smeared, hazy print with the crisp, sparkling detail of what one perceives through the eyes. In the early stages of transmission from retina to brain some of these errors are computed out: blurred contours are sharpened and a start is made on preparing the information for the part it will eventually play in conscious perception.

Miller (1978: 335) is determined that a given portion of retina does not work like a passive “camera obscura, carrying a miniature replica of what it represents.” Rather:

it is a mathematical analyzer which breaks down the physical components of the sensory input into the biologically relevant features of the physical world… The visual experience, for instance, is not simply a shifting panorama of contours, shadows and colours. What one sees is a series of enduring objects which are apparently distributed in a coherent three-dimensional space.

Miller, Jonathan (1978) The Body in Question. Random House. New York