Strange, I saw a mere 60mp cited recently. (i.e. close within range of medium format, though it looks like full frame might get there first).
Most of that data must be thrown away. (Does anybody still believe that "you remember everything you have seen" canard?)
Looking at that page, the focal length given for the eye seems not to take into account the point of what I guess you could call "dense attentiveness," the central points which are less sensitive (from frequent use; Carl Sagan wrote about this in Cosmos) but which make up the point you focus your attention on and which is fairly narrow. The part outside, in most people, seems to be used mainly for peripheral vision. On top of all that, the "wider' view you think you have seems to be a panoramic stitch compiled by the brain, where things you have recently focused on may seem to be in view when they really aren't. If you take a moment and concentrate on the part of what you're looking at right now that is actually sharp, you'll see that it is very narrow and probably shaped like a somewhat flattened oval. I've seen a simulation of it; it's almost as if you were looking through a heavily vignetted lens with an odd shaped image section (can't say circle).
Of course, you can see parts outside this region without any darkening, but perhaps the case is the brain doesn't know how to deal with them. So even if the outside parts of the eye's nerves are formed just like those near the center, the way the brain is thought to work seems to indicate that some of that stated 576MP resolution does not factor into most of your daily viewing, but rather into situations like peripheral vision.
In terms of digital cameras, "Digital Zoom" (i.e. crop zoom) is the closest concept I can compare it to.
It's also worth mentioning that it's a lot harder to return faulty eyes to the store than it is to get a camera replaced. And even when your eyes work well, it takes a long time for sensitivity to adjust. The powerpoint gives a remarkable half hour needed to adjust for nighttime viewing; in early people where artificial lights were less common, this would be fine, but in modern life we move in and out from light to dark situations relatively quickly. The human eye is great indeed, but I don't see the argument for intelligent design working so well in that the human eye doesn't always work as well as a camera in modern situations. (Apologies for the political slant at the end there.)