A splendid video about evolution

The ID movement, as per my understanding, believes there are critical examples of an intelligence intervening to produce complex forms like the eyeball.

Ah. They're just using clear examples to show that design by non-physical intelligence/s is a thing. Same with bacteria flagellum.

The mistake is in thinking of eyeballs as distinct from the whole form. Or any particular thing. Every biological form we know of starts as a single cell from conception, so we can't think of the eyeball as truly separate. Is there anything in DNA that tells the organism how to build an eyeball or where to put it in the form?

Anyways, the eyeball must be designed as part of the whole organism, because the whole organism is a complex form where multiple systems depend on each other.The eyeball must be designed to work with the rest of the organism, and allow the organism to do what it needs to do. It's why you have so many different eye designs from species to species.

Ah. They're just using clear examples to show that design by non-physical intelligence/s is a thing. Same with bacteria flagellum.

The mistake is in thinking of eyeballs as distinct from the whole form. Or any particular thing. Every biological form we know of starts as a single cell from conception, so we can't think of the eyeball as truly separate. Is there anything in DNA that tells the organism how to build an eyeball or where to put it in the form?

Anyways, the eyeball must be designed as part of the whole organism, because the whole organism is a complex form where multiple systems depend on each other.The eyeball must be designed to work with the rest of the organism, and allow the organism to do what it needs to do. It's why you have so many different eye designs from species to species.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "complex form"?

I just find it hard to see how we can know the eyeball can't be formed via evolution as normally accepted. This isn't to say there was no intervention or guidance, just that these timescales and the associated probability of the eye being developed are hard to judge.

Can you elaborate what you mean by "complex form"?

Well... every organism functions as a whole. No part in an organism can function properly without the others ~ in say, the digestive system, which requires every organ to be functioning properly.

I just find it hard to see how we can know the eyeball can't be formed via evolution as normally accepted.

There is no explanation by Darwinists about how it can evolve by "natural selection" ~ there are the just-so stories they have, which aren't an explanation.

This isn't to say there was no intervention or guidance, just that these timescales and the associated probability of the eye being developed are hard to judge.

The problem with big timescales is that you still won't logically get an eye evolving per Darwinian principles.

Even with intervention and guidance from intelligent designers, it doesn't make any sense for it to be gradual, when an intelligent designer can design it, and make it part of an organism in its full form. That is to say, gradual evolution is redundant. We have no evidence of gradually evolving eyeballs, either.

We know from the research in biology that DNA never appears to gain new information ~ it only ever appears to devolve, by degrading, and losing functionality, so as to deal with various problems. That is, random mutations never appear to add information, only take it away, to help stressed organisms survive.