Here is my beef with the theory of evolution in a simple nutshell. I don't see evolution (macro) taking place in the world in which I live right now today.
Unfortunately - for you - your opinion is worthless. Most of your post is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
Please define "macro"evolution - so we can be sure we are (a) talking about evolution and (b) we are talking about the same thing.
Also define "micro"evolution just to be sure we are talking about something different.
It should be easy eh?.
I would welcome your definitions.
First of all how would a non-thinking source even know that we needed to see to begin with?
You need to realize that evolution is not driven towards any goal, there is no single feature that was developed because it was needed. Not one. As has been pointed out eyes are not needed by the majority of species - all the ones that do not have them do not need them to survive or reproduce. Survival and reproduction are the key to whether an existing feature is passed on to the next generation. All that is needed is small differences - variation caused by mutations - accumulating over time as they are succesful at meeting the filter of selection. That such things are developed by accumulation rather than by design is evidenced by problems and errors that cannot be reversed (by evolution) that would NOT be a result of design.
For a discussion of the design of the eye please see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy.... That is - ostensibly - the topic of your post although you don't really address it except to express your incredulity and your ignorance of all the variety of eyes that have evolved AND of all the problems with vision in different species.
In my opinion Intelligent Design is a fact not a theory.
Again, your opinion is useless. What you need is evidence. Your incredulity and ignorance of ways in which vision could evolve is not evidence of anything other than your incredulity and ignorance. You need evidence of some mechanism that blocks something from occurring. That is notoriously absent.
Now each of these systems are extremely complex are they not? Complexity requires forethought.
This is a bald assertion unsupported by any evidence. Not only that you have a problem of a total lack of definition of what you are talking about: what IS "complexity" as you are using it? Not that standard definitions are much help:
So we need to define "complex" to define "complexity" ...
So complexity is the state or quality of being composed of many interconnected parts.
By this definition a simple molecule is complex, and any single cell that evolves a new interconnection in a molecule - evidenced by DNA or a new ability has become more complex - it has added to the state or quality of being composed of many interconnected parts.
This has been observed, many times, thus your assertion is falsified. Complexity has evolved in species with no thoughts, no help, no "needs" - to say nothing of any forethought.
I see that in the time it took me to get my poor old badly designed computer to post the response I had that you have decided to run screaming FROM the debate.
You realize that this is standard creationist tactic:
™ Version 4.2
