OJFP:

Well written response! Not being as erudite as yourself, I phrase it as: "God is great, God is good, but God don't do 'nice'!"

Guest, Grose: You are repeating the fallacy (I'm sure there's a name for it, but I'm not sure what it is) of arguing that the future is predicted in ancient writings but only after that predicted event has occurred. I'm sure you can find anything has been predicted, so long as it has already occurred!

As for Darwin, I don't believe he ever indicated that the structure of the eye disproved his theory, and in fact it does not disprove his theory. Some discussion on your inaccurate reference can be found here. As for the numerology between 'eye' (what language) and your perception of what an eye 'connection' means, you can prove anything with that, too.

True science, not ersatz science, has been described by Einstein as an attempt to "understand the mind of God". Ersatz science is an attempt to justify an existing belief by bending interpretations and linguistic arts in the service of self-justification. This has been done all too often with Darwin and has been successfully lampooned in The Onion with faith-based gravitation.