Excellent addition to the site in my humble opinion :p
In regards to the so called "irreducible complexity" of the eye, anti-evolutionists often use the following Darwin quote, mined from the chapter ''Difficulties of the Theory,''of Darwin's Origin of the Species:-
.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

.
However the follow on paragraph is always ommitted from their quote.
.
He continues..

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

.
My personal favourite rebuttal to the creationist "eye complexity argument" is a link to the following question and answer session with Walter Gehring. Last year Gehring was hot favourite with many in the "industry" to be awarded a Nobel Prize for his discovery of Hox genes.
.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
.
Hox genes are master genes at the apex of developmental pathways in embryos. Homologous Hox genes, (very similar higly conserved DNA gene sequences) have been identified across extremely diverse kinds of species coding for comparable areas of embryonic development.
The discovery is considered very strong support for a common molecular ancestor.
.
In the past year whenever I've been involved in any discussions over the "irreducible complexity of the eye" and presented this information, I've yet to be presented with a rebuttal! In future I will also be sure to add a link for Richard's video adding a little more icing on that cake :)

.
I'm also a huge fan of the Talk Origins website. I link it regularly and think the site deserves some kind of award for it's handling of creationist anti-evolution claims.
.
A favourite question I have for the anti-evolution YECs/IDists is "why would god create/design scent glands around the human anus?".
.
Another handy link: Answers in Genesis Statement of faith. AiG is very often referenced by the YECs, (Young Earth Creationists), when they are trying to argue for the scientific basis (:p) of Genesis.
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

"Summary of the AiG Statement of Faith"
(D) General
#6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

.
The whole statement is a handy ref. but that one is my favourite :)