grishka - if I understand you correctly [ cue steve for more derogatory verbage!] you are talking about experimentation, leading to design in regards to the word -evolution- , as opposed to the naturalistic idea of undirected influences in nature.
as to dawkins,- it seems to me that the thrust of his "reasoning" is not that God could/should have made the eye more perfect or higher functionality achieved, but that the wiring was wrong and therefore proving non design, or a stupid designer. [I am inclined to think he would be happy with either conclusion!].

I note stu, that you are still equating natural selection with evolutionism. the former is certainly a supposed mechanism of the latter, but Darwinism has yet to prove ANY mechanism that demonstrates microbes to mudcatters evolution.
before the fall...? natural selection == death does it not?
at the beginning there was no death of animals and humans [ I refuse to accommodate your equal status] though microbes, plant life, and perhaps insect life , I think did die. i am not entirely clear on that detail.
I am disappointed that though you still make some arguments, your tone is otherwise beginning to get like steves.
that is your prerogative, but mine will be not to answer, as is mostly the case re steves.