Richard Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye

Just because something looks "engineered", doesn't mean it is. A perfect example is the eye. An organ of great complexity, but one that is very easily explained by logical evaluation, as well as existing living creatures and fossils: [VIDEO] If you're a software engineer, I hope you understand how procedural systems and algorithms can transform data and functions. Similar processes take place via chemistry and biological interaction. Conway's Game of Life is a good example of a simple system giving rise to complex interaction and patterns. Complex beauty can arise from the interaction of systems, but if you say to yourself that it "must have been engineered by something greater than me", you settle in your mind, and shortcut around critical thinking and never progress toward understanding . And that's a great, great shame.

Actually the history of the eye has been farily well understood, and the various stages of its evolution can be seen in animals that exist today. Dawkins explains it: [VIDEO]

Makes me think of Dawkins' demonstration of eye evolution, where he shows the usefulness of even simple photo-receptor designs: [VIDEO]

Dawkins invalidating the notion that the eye is irreducably complex: [VIDEO] . Showing quite clearly how incremental beneficial change leads to the development of complex features. But it will never matter to creationists: [LINK] . (Don't even bother with that last link.) They'll always just build another straw man.