Question

Hello Rabbi,
You have mentioned more than once the argument that if we assume a creation has no creator, then it should not be relied upon.
During a train ride to Scotland, a stone sign suddenly appears with the words “Welcome to Scotland.” If we assume it was intentionally built by a builder, then it is very reasonable to take the sign seriously and rely on it. However, if we assume the stones just happened to be there by chance and formed some kind of inscription, then we should not rely on the information that emerged in them. So far this is clear to me, since we are dealing with inanimate objects.
Certainly we would not rely on an inanimate object (like a watch, an airplane, or an entrance sign to Scotland) if we did not assume it was designed and built in an orderly, intelligent way.
What is not clear to me is the leap from not relying on an inanimate object to not relying on a living organ like our eyes (which are also a complex and wondrous creation). Our eyes, unlike inanimate objects, are subject to evolution—they may have begun from a very primitive starting point and gradually developed into their current complex state. How does that fit with the argument?
Thank you