I havent seen that reference but i have a hard time not including any light trap in that materialistic content. What becomes somewhat questionable is certain issues in the history of the "cell theory" if a ciliate/flagellate is considered a pre-eye for then the presumption of evolution seems to mask former disagreement about what the cells were(bark vs reproductive organ parts).
I well recall the whole thing with the cell being about whether they were simply a bag of chemicals or rather not as data from the 70s showed and accumulated. I guess I cant bring myself to say what Behe or me might see inside a cell is enough complexity to justify the difference I see between a fish eye and a hamster's. Fish eyes just look dead to me and I cant see a whole paramecium unless i put my eye up to a microscope.
I guess you're probably correct if I was going to argue for the ciliates I would have to continue to your level. In my older memory then if the cell is bag then these single cells, plants, and flagelltes cant be eyes any way I would have thought.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-11-2005 06:05 PM