Dunno. You ought to take that one up with the makers of X-Ray machines, telescopes, LI and IR gear, microscopes ...
The machines you mention enhance the view of the eye in certain specific situations, however, they do not have the broad range of the human eye. The best analogy to the human eye is a camera, and those do not approach the eye in range, accuracy, usefullness in varying lights, etc. As I said, when someone can show they can make a better eye than the one we have, let them criticize it. If one does not know how or why something works so well it is totally ridiculous for them to criticize it. Evos used to criticize appendix as useless due to ignorance, they have been proven wrong. Evos used to call the non-genetic parts of the genome "junk DNA" they were proven wrong, that DNA provides lots of capabilities to the organism. Arguments from ignorance are false arguments.