So are you claiming that every single similarity he points out is non-existent, or only that the two systems are not as similar as he is claiming? If you are claiming the latter, I have no reason to continue disputing. If you are claiming the former, then I think you are simply in error, because if there were no other similarity at all, at the very minimum both employ a lens to refract light rays.
I have been asking only for a very small retraction or qualification on your part, not a surrender of your overall point that the eye is not exactly like man-made optical devices. So I’m not reactively saying yes to your no. But you are remarkably reluctant to say, “OK, so I overstated the facts a bit.” Anyhow, whether you want to concede that or not, I’m content to drop this discussion, with no hard feelings. Can we move on?
ID would never embrace “evolution as a method of design” – I’m not even sure that such a conception is logically coherent, given the normal meanings of “evolution”, “method”, and “design”. But already many ID proponents grant that a design might be actualized through a process of evolution.
And far from causing ID to wither and die, this view gives ID a wider appeal, because it means that people other than creationists will buy and give consideration to ID books. Denton has now published three pro-evolutionary books, and guess who the publisher is? Discovery!