Not necessarily, there is a phenomena called an evolutionary plateau. In order for some characteristics to change in populations it would put a lineage at a selective disadvantage before the transitional process was complete. Having the optic nerve behind the retina would offer an organism possessing such an eye a selective advantage with increased visual acuity over those that had their nerves in front of the retina. However, moving the nerve from in front of the retina to the rear is a radical evolutionary process. It could not be accomplished with a single mutation, but would require many mutations over many generations. Most likely it would require completely new proteins involved in embryonic development to place the nerve in the rear. The transitionary phases would put an organism at such a disadvantage (blindness) that any individuals possessing the transitionary mutations would be strongly selected against and the mutations would not become fixed in the population. Transitionary individuals are actually less fit then the “nerve in front” individuals. Therefore the transition dies as soon as it is started. Evolution often goes with whats “good enough” rather than the best possible solution for a particular selective pressure.
However if one were designed by a perfect god "good enough" wouldn't cut it. I would expect a god to design an eye as effeciently as possible.
Interesting that you should post the above as supporting evolution! If moving a nerve from front to back is so hard, so impossible, then think of how hard, how impossible it is for a reptile to turn into a bird, or for a complete eye system to arise. Imagine how long such an accomplishment would have to wait and consider how your statement "Transitionary individuals are actually less fit" makes such a transformation absolutely impossible.