[liliesgrandpa]

While evolution doesn't have a clear explanation for the development of the eye or the flagellum, biologists say they can show that both are not irreducibly complex.

Who are they kidding? Did the little blob of accidental randomness just decide "hey, I would like an eye, I think I'll just grow one"
Or why would a bird evolve wings, not knowing that flight was even possible, which wing stubs would be useless for millions of years until fully developed.

[snarks_when_bored]

The science of evolution is in statu nascendi (as are almost all other sciences). We don't ask babies to explain how Pentium chips are designed, made and operate, right? We're still babies as far as understanding the origins and development of life on our planet is concerned.

The desire to have final answers NOW! is strong, but must be resisted by those who seek true understanding rather than palliative beliefs.

[b_sharp]

"Who are they kidding? Did the little blob of accidental randomness just decide "hey, I would like an eye, I think I'll just grow one"

You have it backwards. Originally a light sensitive cell was produced through mutation (it exists in extant organisms). Those with the cell had a better chance of surviving and reproducing, thus passing that cell to their offspring. The reproductive advantage those with the light sensitive cell had, allowed the cell to become fixed in the population. Further developments were simply modifications to the cell.

"Or why would a bird evolve wings, not knowing that flight was even possible, which wing stubs would be useless for millions of years until fully developed."

The development of wings was not a 'choice' birds made. Nor would a half wing be just a stub of a wing. It would have been a feathered front limb that would not have been changed in function from the limb's original use. The exclusive use of the front limb for flight would have been a rather late development, well after flight itself developed.

If you desire to debate in this subject I suggest you learn a bit about evolution rather than simply guess at the implications of a strawman version of it.