Not really. It's kind of a wash. We really don't have any idea how the eye got here, now do we?
My point is this crap being posited about the evolution an eye is pure speculation. It is not science and should not be taught in Biology textbooks because there is zero evidence that the eye changed over time in any creature.
That's a bold-faced lie.
My point is this crap being posited about the evolution an eye is pure speculation. It is not science and should not be taught in Biology textbooks because there is zero evidence that the eye changed over time in any creature.
So we should say an Intelligent Designer did it whenever someone says "I don't think it's possible for that to have happened through TOE"? Is that it? Is that how ID should be taught alongside TOE in biology classes?