From
Introduction to the Euglenoids
The number of chloroplasts present in photosynthetic euglenoids varies greatly, however lens-shaped chloroplasts are common. The photosynthetic membranes (thylakoids) within the
plastids are stacked in groups of three. The grana stacks, typical of higher plant chloroplasts are not present. Euglenoids are believed to have acquired their chloroplasts by the ingestion and subsequent endosymbiosis of a green algal cell. The chloroplast is surrounded by three membranes. The outermost membrane is believed to represent the plasma membrane of the original host cell which engulfed the green alga.
Note that the critters in question are believed to have acquired "their chloroplasts by the ingestion and subsequent endosymbiosis of a green algal cell" and that the "outermost membrane is believed to represent the plasma membrane of the original host cell which engulfed the green alga." This is a prediction of evolutionary theory and is something that can come in handy later. According to this part of the theory, some small critters can incorporate parts of other small critters into their systems. This could lead to doctors incorporating useful parts of certain organisms into other organisms which could then be used to combat disease or cure hereditary disorders.
ID and creationism simply say "God made it this way." It gives us nothing to hang anything useful upon. Using ID or creationism one could never deduce that some critters can successfully incorporate parts of other critters and use them.
BTW, this is sort of a hint toward answering VadeRetro's question regarding why paleontologists do not consider dinosaurs to have had mammary glands. I know you don't really understand evolutionary theory all that well and I figured you might need a little help.
Note that the critters in question are BELIEVED to have acquired "their chloroplasts by the ingestion and subsequent endosymbiosis of a green algal cell"[emphasis mine]
"Believed" is not a scientific term. Belief means having faith in something. It is not science. Science is observation first of all. It is verification of a theory, not belief. Now the question that should be asked is what is the basis for this belief? Is there anything scientific in it? Let's look up endosymbiosis:
The gap between eukaryotes, cells with nuclei, and prokaryotes, cells which lack nuclei, is considered by many biologists to be the most profound missing link in evolutionary history. In an attempt to describe the way in which this gap was bridged, scientists have proposed the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET). The term "endosymbiosis" specifies the relationship between organisms which live one within another (symbiont within host) in a mutually beneficial relationship. The SET states that the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes involved the symbiotic union of several previously independent ancestors. According to the theory, these ancestors included a host cell, an ancestor of mitochondria, an ancestor of chloroplasts, and, more controversially, a prokaryote that brought with it the structures that today provide cellular motion.
FROM: Serial Endosymbiosis
Euglena, not only presents the problem of where did the eye come from, but also where did the cell nuclei come from and how a plant-animal arose. Note that nothing above, in your posts or in any of the articles linked to on this subject explains the eye of the euglena. Even the ridiculous "belief" in endosymbiosis does not provide an answer to that question. Let's also look at what is going on here. A new theory (endosymbiosis) is being created out of whole cloth to support another theory (evolution) which cannot explain how eukaryotes arose through descent from prokaryotes. It is pretty much like the Ptolemaic theory of geocentricity - as more was discovered, the more epicycles were created.