[stickfigure]

I'm having trouble figuring out what your objection is.

If we're going to study an evolutionary process, we have to pick a starting point. "How an eye evolves from a single sheet of light sensitive cells" is particularly relevant because creationists like to claim that "half an eye isn't useful, so it couldn't have evolved".

"How does a single cell evolve light sensitivity" is not a particularly hot button topic. Creationists don't drone on about plants.

[Verdex]

I'm not sure about that. At least in my experience there are two types of creationists. The ones who have integrated a non-belief of evolution into a core component of their religious beliefs. This type isn't going to listen to any argument for evolution so I don't know why time should be spent making arguments for them.

The other flavor are the ones saying "wait a second microbiology is really complex, I'm not sure the standard evolutionary process cuts it here."

Saying, "well let's just assume microbiology isn't a problem", isn't going to be compelling to them.

It is an interesting endeavor, but with respect to the whole creationism vs evolution discourse it feels like a complete waste of time.

[tga_d]

Creationists don't argue things are generically "too complicated", they argue that there are structures in nature that aren't discoverable by progressive mutations. As Dawkins explains in the video, eyes are an extremely commonly cited example. I've never heard anyone argue that cells couldn't evolve photosensitivity, but I have heard plenty of people argue that eyes only work when they're fully functional, which is what Dawkins is explaining as untrue here (as is TFA). I don't find the idea of debating creationism especially likely to be fruitful overall, but answering the question "How does evolution explain the structure of eyes?", e.g., for an adolescent who is grew up in a fundamentalist household, seems entirely reasonable to address.