I don't think biology is your strong suit. Losing a sensory organ is a different proposition than creating a new one. Species lose genes/experience mutations all the time, usually with fatal results.

The ID argument is that a "partial eye" is not worth anything, and since it comes at a (metabolic) cost it is counterproductive to survival. Isn't that what the blind salamander proves, that when you have an "organ" that doesn't work, it shouldn't persist? That it won't persist long enough to be a functional one? I'm not sure I would bring this up as an outstanding example of support for evolutionary theory.

Now, I realize that evolution teaches the photosensitive cell conveys some survival advantage, which leads to a recess, which conveys a survival advantage, etc. But that is the evolution of an organ, not the devolution of complexity.