to argue the reverse. Easy example: I put gas in the car, turn on the engine, and out comes CO2, water, etc. If I put CO2, etc, into the car, it won't make gasoline. True, the chemical reactions will work but you need another mechanism.

You should know I am a theisitic evolutionist--not an ID'er or certainly not a Young Earth creationist. That doesn't matter to the debate. Going from complexity (functioning eye) to non complexity does demonstrate evolution of a sort (not sure if the blind salamander is truly a new species), but the kind that an IDer would embrace--evolution's arrow pointing toward simplicity, not complexity.

What I am really saying (see original post) is this isn't the argument that will make an IDer suddenly sit up and say--oh, now I get it. Just as you cannot seem to think outside of your box and see that someone might think that way, and that evolution toward simplicity is not the stumbling block for non-evolutionist--evolution toward complexity is.