rationalskepticism.org

The eye is not a particular case in point unless one is indulging the fantasy that each part of a human was designed separately to do the thing that it does - which is pure teleology really. This is the only possible justification for the assertion that the human eye is too complex to have evolved, and that it complete nonsense of course. Such arguments are so human-centric, have they not stopped and asked themselves why <nominated supernatural agent> would give humans an eye inferior in every regard to that of the mantis shrimp, for example?

One thing I've never heard from a creationist are justifications as to why <nominated supernatural agent> made human survival necessarily dependent on bacteria. Having said that, there's probably a creationist forum somewhere dedicated to just that subject!