Are Blind Cave Fish Proof of Evolution?

My wife and I had some blind cave fish in an aquarium. They were good-tempered and went well in a "community tank". We seem to have a fondness for various tetras. 


Tinkering with a protein called HSP90, some effect was found on their eyes and sockets. However, typical of evolution's proponents, results were attributed to (wait for it) evolution! But this is not only question begging, but the Fallacy of Exclusion.

It seems that practically anything can be used as proof of evolution. Of course, things observed can be interpreted in other (and more sensible) ways, but people who have evolutionary presuppositions, they tend to have tunnel vision when interpreting the evidence. In addition, it is playing fast and loose with disingenuous definitions of evolution.
How do fish that can see make the switch to blind cavefish, and should that process really be called “evolution”? This transformation fascinates biologists. Picture the scene—a normal-looking fish lays normal-looking eggs, but its hatchlings look like something from science fiction. Thin, pale-pink skin covers not just their bodies but their shrunken eye sockets as well.
. . .
Publishing in the journal Science, the team found that environmental cues somehow communicate to HSP90 in developing fish and that the protein does indeed control genetic variation for the size of tetra eyes and their sockets.
You can finish reading "Blind Cavefish Shed Light on Creation", here.