[Iota]

Evolutionary theory is completely based on blind chance.

No, not really. Chance is involved, sure; but it's not blind, and it's "guided" by natural selection. Attempts to criticize the theory that ignore these last two factors -- such as the recent "Million Monkeys" threads -- always fail, because what they're attacking is not evolutionary theory.

In other words, evolutionists would agree that blind chance (alone) can't create the human eye. But that agreement doesn't help the folks who disbelieve evolution.

[massconservative]

The term natural selection as used by Darwin simply means an ability to produce more offspring. The human eye, or any eye for that matter, caused considerable consternation for Darwin himself as it certainly would not be a positive mutation unless fully functioning. Therefore, it is inconceivable that "natural selection" would have continued to select for each infintesimal improvement that would eventually lead to a usable eye. The term "guided natural selection" is a contradiction. Guided would imply an intelligence such as in human-engineered selective breeding. But, after intelligently directed selective breeding for hundreds of years, thousands in the case of goldfish, no new species has been created. If there is a guidance mechanism in natural selection, it would seem a powerful argument for intelligent design, which is what the debate is all about.