When it came to the eye it helped to look at aquatic animals. The eye was more or less fully evolved when life crawled out of the ocean. It was interesting to s

When it came to the eye it helped to look at aquatic animals. The eye was more or less fully evolved when life crawled out of the ocean. It was interesting to see how the eye evolved when it was explained to me. My biggest problem with the fundamentalist that argue along the lines irreducible complexity is that they often think they have hard evidence when all they have is a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to look into the problem. The reasoning is annoying too: “I don’t know” -> “God exists” -> “Prove me wrong” Putting the burden of proof on the other person in the hopes that they can’t and then convert is also rather naive. There are two types of people. 1) people who can look into this and aren’t swayed by the argument 2) people that just don’t care. And honestly, most are going to be in the second camp and just “trust in science”. I would be interested in knowing if the irreducible complexity people actually found anything that science hasn't looked into before hand? I mean stuff like this is probably worth a research paper for somebody if they actually found something that wasn’t explained scientifically instead of stuff that the average person on the street can’t explain.