Sure it can. The difficulty there lies not in the impossibility of coming up with an explanation but with figuring out which of multiple possible explanations was (or were) most important, given the limited evidence that's survived since then. What exactly do you think is impossible to explain here?
By recruitment of proteins that were already present in species that already had functioning eyes but lacked lenses. Lenses appear rather later in eye evolution and the specific proteins recruited vary between lineages. There is a large literature on this --
here is one paper I grabbed at random.
You test the hypothesis that lens proteins evolved from other functional proteins by comparing the DNA coding for the lens proteins with the coding sequence for the whole set of proteins within the same lineage. It's quite easy to identify proteins that have descended and diverged from a common ancestral protein (at least at the kind of time depth we're talking about here), and the relatives are indeed found for lens proteins.
Since we don't know the genetic basis of most behavioral traits. reconstructing their evolution is pretty much impossible at the moment. What makes you think this would be a problem for evolution to achieve? Animal behaviors clearly have a genetic basis, and whatever has a genetic basis can change with mutation. What's the problem?
Since you're the one who is arguing that evolution cannot scientifically explain these features, how about you support your own argument here? Spider silk comes in a wide variety of forms, coded for by an array of genes in different species. What hypotheses have been advanced to explain this set of genes? What evidence has been advanced to support those hypotheses? What do you find lacking in those explanations?