blueshift:

I believe Intelligent Design is bunk, and that Hitch has it right that its just creationism in a cheap suit. However, blank eye sockets do not disprove creationism unless you are presuming to know the intent of the creator. Its not a stretch to posit that the creator has an aesthetic that includes the overall facial structure that we see conserved across species.

It is the deeper structures, such as the old visual processing centers of the brain (and whatever they may be now) or gene fragments that once coded for light receptor molecules that make the creationist case harder.

Ultimately though, creationism does not need to meet scientific tests because it is a matter of faith not science.

By the standard established here, Creationism can never be disproven. Why should aesthetic be the only possible intent of the creator? Maybe his intent is to have deeper vestigial structures, just to fool non-believers into worshiping a Godless evolution? We could posit infinite things a Creator might intend.

But in any case, my understanding of the latest in pure Creationist science is that of "kinds"; that micro evolution does occur, but is limited to the point that speciation does not occur. It goes thus: yes, salamanders lost their eyes, but the blind ones are still salamanders. Their kind hasn't changed.

Creationism is so nebulous, and they don't care about getting the details right. Their only requirement is a Creator, and such can never be "disproven". I think the blind salamander is a useful bit of evidence though, and provides a simple example of evolution that a lay person can easily grasp.