Attenborough argues that God wouldn't create a parasite for the human eye, but that's the classic failure to fail to understand the creationist position, we don't believe God created parasites for those reasons, or malfunctions on purpose, any more than we believe He invented mad cow disease.
So you're forced to fall back on the position that the "creator" didn't create everything.
Why wouldn't a designer do it exactly that way? Does it matter if the failure rate is high?
Why would a designer design an airplane that crashes 99 per cent of the time? Of course it matters.
How can you be critical of an arrangement if you don't know what the arrangement is for?
The whole premise of the ID movement is that if something "looks designed" it must be. Why not use the same argument against ID? If it looks like nobody with half a brain would design it that way, it most likely wasn't designed.
How does 0.05% of a mammary system confer a survival advantage?
You can lick salt off your own skin. The right balance of salt in your body confers a survival advantage.
A lot of animals groom each other and eat the bugs. That's a double survival advantage: a nutritional supplement for one and a control of parasites for the other.
There are even symbiotic relationships between different species.
It's a pretty simple principle really. Every little bit helps. So anything a mother produces that can help her baby survive is an evolutionary advantage. A couple of mutations here and there can make a big difference.
If I simply give spare change to the creative homeless guy spinning his sign on the corner, and if i am doing it to alleviate my conscience, perhaps I am not doing enough.
Did you read my post at all? There's nothing there that requires any imagination; it's all observed fact: salt, grooming, symbiosis. It's a very simple fact that many species get nutrition from something on another organism's body.
Darwinists have to dumb-down very complex processes in order to make them seem plausible.
Yes, it has to be dumbed down pretty far for creationists to understand it.
Without this vital concession, junk science has no chance at all of surviving.
Science will survive with or without dumb creationists. It survived dumb flat-earthers, didn't it? There's a survival advantage to intelligence.
The trouble with many evolutionary "explanations" is that they are untestable hypotheses relating to events that cannot be verified as factual....
You're misunderstanding what verification means. It's true that we can't dig up Napoleon, resuscitate him and see if he conquers Europe again - but there are other ways to verify his existence and his actions. Maybe you should think about why you accept Napoleon before you reject evolution so casually.