It was a short article that simply stated what both sides believe. Could it have been better written? I am sure it could have but it is hardly an example of laughable journalism.

The writer was working with limited space and I would imagine limit time. He simply presented views from both sides without any attempt to defend or explain them.

I see you quibbled over using the words "proven theory". You stated their argument were invalid, I assume because you didn’t like the use of proven and theory. You forget two points, it isn’t the writer’s argument and you are quibbling about semantics. If they had simply stated that evolution was an unproven theory I may agree with you but since we don’t even know if there is an supportable theory for the development of the compound eye(which is what that statement referred to) then I think dismissing the article for that wording it unjustified. Supportable theory or valid theory may hav ebeen better words but this waas written for non-science people and the Telegraph is hardly a scietific journal. If you want to find examples of poorly written scienc article you can do way better then this.

Sorry but from I sit it still looks like the canon of evolution to me. I notice that no one actually bothered to refute any of the claims made by creationist outside of your semantics issue.

The old point and laugh so people think we are smart game.