Haha. Actually, you should sometime look up Simon Conway Morris, a very reputable evolutionary biologist, who points out that evolution may be much more convergent then scientists have supposed. This means that, among other things, there may be an underlying direction to evolution such that evolution producing creatures like humans may be highly probable!

Check out the <a href="http://www.mapoflife.org/">Map of Life</a> website that tracks peer review literature suggesting evolution having an underlying convergence.

Optimal in what circumstances? For many animals the eyes are more on the side to better see both behind and in front. For the type of environments our ancestors evolved from it was better to have them more in the front. I can't imagine too many environments where it's best to have them in back. (Although there is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatfish">flatfish</a> although even there it's not really on back as such - depending upon what you mean by back)

I also think it's fair to ask how similar a body has to be to be in the image. There's probably a wide range of possibilities. I also think that even Mormon evolutionists typically accept God as interventionist. They just disagree with the type of intervention that an ID proponent urges.

Except for the fact that the odds are more like 1 in 10 to the 1500th power, according to mathematician William Dembski, and that no scientifically conducted experiment has ever shown that two simultaneously occurring beneficial morphological changes can occur, I'd say the Darwinists have realistic grounds for hope.