Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[liquidpele]

Ok, thanks for these answers. The idea that “God is responsible for evolution” is one that was rejected by Darwin since it would render natural selection “superfluous”. Beyond that, I noticed that you posted from Talk Origins previously, but do you have any sources to support your belief that God is responsible for evolution? What, precisely, did God do with evolution? What does he “not do” with evolution? I think, in any case, you cannot show any scientific sources to support your views here.

I think this is a major problem for evolutionary theory. The human soul is the spiritual, non-material nature of man. It represents the “ontological leap” that Pope John Paul II mentioned (as incompatible with materialistic evolution).

What effect does the human soul have on evolution? If science cannot speak about this, then it’s an obvious flaw with evolutionary theory itself.

The only source for intelligence, consciousness and spirituality (memory, will, imagination) comprising the soul is a non-material, intelligent agent.

Are you saying that you see no evidence of the power of God’s intelligent design in nature? I’m not sure here - and I don’t mean to mischaracterize your views.

I don’t see the soul as causing any problem for evolution, because just like ID, the soul is not something that can be scientifically tested. There is nothing that can prove or disprove the existence of the soul, so it’s strictly non-science. Evolution, being based on scientific method, is not suited to even enter the discussion.

Essentially, the soul is to evolution as a rock is to biology.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Michaelo

So you don’t oppose biological evolution (which doesn’t deal with the origin of life), but you do appear to oppose chemical evolution.

At no point in this thread did I dispute the theory of evolution. What I have been disputing is the notion that evolution has not been directed by an intelligent design. You are welcome to start from the first post andd search for a statement opposing the theory of evolution. My position has been consistent with that of all the popes, that evolution can be an acceptable process by which God designed and created everything in the universe, including Man.

What I have been asking, if you go back and look at the entire thread, is how evolution explains the appearance of the first life form without intelligent design. The odds that life began on its own by happenstance are so **enormously small ** as to be nil. Even many scientists who are not religious concede this. But you seem to be on the side of the atheistic biology establishment which is fighting tooth and nail for the existence of no design whatever, because this turns science into religion.

So what? Many great scientists have acknowledged a higher reasoning power as the only way to explain the highly complex organization of Nature.

Nicolaus Copernicus: Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler: Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei: Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton: Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin: Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.”

James Clerk Maxwell: Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin: Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin: Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Louis Pasteur: Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck: Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson: Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg: Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton: Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born: Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

George LeMaitre: Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein: Special and General Theories of Relativity

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

*Again, if by “intelligently designed the moment and circumstances” you mean created the natural laws that governed the origin of life, then yes. *

And which natural law do you refer to that governed the origin of life? It certainly wasn’t evolution.

 

[tonyrey]

That said, let us concede that the theory of evolution as described by the steps below explains creation.

1. Mutation in the genes that changes some characteristic of the organism
2. Change in the living conditions to which the population is exposed either by isolation, migration, and or environmental change
3. Increase in the chance of survival for the organism possessing the mutant characteristic.
4. An increase in the mutant organism’s opportunity or chance to propagate.
5. Transfer of the mutant gene to the progeny.
6. A repetition of the first five steps over a long period of time.

Then here is the compromise: Let us concede steps 2 to 6 to Darwin and step 1 to God. It seems fair enough that we (I. D.ers’) concede 5 parts to the Darwinians and keep only one for God’s side. After all, there is no good explanation for the cause of the mutations. And furthermore it generally takes more than one gene to impact a characteristic, which really plays hell with the probability of random mutation. So the Darwinians, being gracious and generous people, should have no trouble giving up step 1 to God’s people. Am I in for a lot of flack? Yppop

The (Neo)Darwinians probably won’t, but (you’ll be pleased to know) I agree with you - with the following reservation:

The universe and its laws were created by God but that does not mean He never intervenes or controls the course of events. After all He is a loving Father who sustains everything in existence, not the remote God of the deists who takes no further interest in His Creation.

 

[liquidpele]

The (Neo)Darwinians probably won’t, but (you’ll be pleased to know) I agree with you - with the following reservation:

The universe and its laws were created by God but that does not mean He never intervenes or controls the course of events. After all He is a loving Father who sustains everything in existence, not the remote God of the deists who takes no further interest in His Creation.

“neo-darwinians” … ?? What a silly term. Are you a “neo-Jesusian” ?

Anyway, those who believe in evolution will likely concede that a God causing the mutations is a theoretical possibility. What we will NOT concede is that such a view is based in science in any way whatsoever. Really, the whole argument regarding ID comes from it claiming that it is science when it follows none of the rules that science defines itself by.

 

[tonyrey]

“neo-darwinians” … ?? What a silly term. Are you a “neo-Jesusian” ?

You’re not up to date with evolutionary theory:
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe certain ideas about the mechanisms of evolution that were developed from Charles Darwin’s original theory of evolution by natural selection… wikipedia

Anyway, those who believe in evolution will likely concede that a God causing the mutations is a theoretical possibility. What we will NOT concede is that such a view is based in science in any way whatsoever. Really, the whole argument regarding ID comes from it claiming that it is science when it follows none of the rules that science defines itself by.

In that case cosmology and archaeology, amongst other subjects, are not science…

 

[tonyrey]

I agree that random mutations and natural selection on their own are insufficient, we also need to consider neutral drift, sexual selection, founder effect and other evolutionary mechanisms.

I’m delighted that you agree that random mutations and natural selection on their own are insufficient to explain the evolution of human beings. The problem for you is that random mutations are the fundamental causes of variation and hence of evolutionary development. Without random mutations evolution would not have occurred. It is precisely on their account that NeoDarwinists reject Design in favour of Chance, i.e. Non-Design.

Are you saying that other animals cannot show purpose? Hate you ever watched a cat hunting or a dog chasing a rabbit? A great many animals exhibit purposeful activity.

You conveniently omit the word “rational”… and identify intellectual activity with instinctive activity.

Complete rubbish. A pile of sand is extremely complex: millions of grains of sand, each with its own particular shape and each with its own particular position in the the pile. Complex objects are produced by fortuitous events all the time. Have a look at a single snowflake, and they are produced in huge numbers by fortuitous processes.

You are confusing order with organization. Is a snowflake comparable to a living cell?

No, I am merely requiring that ID abides by the rules of science

.
In that case neither cosmology nor archaeology, amongst other branches of knowledge, are sciences.

You asked for evidence of evolution and I provided it. I have asked you for equivalent experimental evidence for ID and you have continually failed to provide it.

Is there experimental evidence in all the sciences?

Why should I go on providing evidence to you when you are not prepared to provide me with any evidence at all.

You have the evidence in your own personal experience. Have you never designed anything? How did you do it? By relying on chance?

For material things I use science because science is extremely good at explaining material things. Our body is just one such material thing that is explained by the science of evolution. For immaterial things I use other sources. For the immaterial components of living organisms I use Buddhism.

I agree with some Buddhist doctrine, e.g. compassion and you agree that it is not scientific. From the point of view of both philosophy and science your combination of Buddhism and evolution infringes the principle of economy. It postulates material and immaterial elements without explaining how they are related or how they originated. It cannot be falsified neither can it be verified by experimentation. You are hardly in a position to criticize ID.

 

[Michaelo]

Beyond that, I noticed that you posted from Talk Origins previously, but do you have any sources to support your belief that God is responsible for evolution? What, precisely, did God do with evolution? What does he “not do” with evolution? I think, in any case, you cannot show any scientific sources to support your views here.

I haven’t tried nor should I try to defend my faith based claims with scientific evidence.

I think this is a major problem for evolutionary theory. The human soul is the spiritual, non-material nature of man. It represents the “ontological leap” that Pope John Paul II mentioned (as incompatible with materialistic evolution).

What effect does the human soul have on evolution? If science cannot speak about this, then it’s an obvious flaw with evolutionary theory itself.

The only source for intelligence, consciousness and spirituality (memory, will, imagination) comprising the soul is a non-material, intelligent agent.

The soul does not present a flaw in evolution as the theory does not attempt to explain “non-material.”

Are you saying that you see no evidence of the power of God’s intelligent design in nature? I’m not sure here - and I don’t mean to mischaracterize your views.

Of course the soul is indicative of God’s influence, but IMO it exists outside of the scientific realm of reality.

 

[rossum]

I’m delighted that you agree that random mutations and natural selection on their own are insufficient to explain the evolution of human beings. The problem for you is that random mutations are the fundamental causes of variation and hence of evolutionary development.

Not a problem at all. Please indicate any piece of human DNA that could not have been formed by means of a random mutation from our common ancestor with the chimps. Random mutation is perfectly capable of producing enough variation to allow the evolution of humans.

You conveniently omit the word “rational”… and identify intellectual activity with instinctive activity.

If you want rational then I give you the chimp who pre-plans his stone throwing: Zoo chimp ‘planned’ stone attacks.

You are confusing order with organization.

You said “We do not have evidence that fortuitous events produce complex organization”. I pointed out that a snowflake is complex, organised and arises from fortuitous events. Your point is refuted, we do have such evidence and a snowflake is just one example. You need to read up more on Dr Dembski’s concept of CSI - you are missing one of the important parts of his definition.

In that case neither cosmology nor archaeology, amongst other branches of knowledge, are sciences.

Why not? Hypotheses in those areas are falsifiable. The Steady State hypothesis was falsified and was dropped, while the Big Bang hypothesis was not falsified and was retained as a theory.

Is there experimental evidence in all the sciences?

How widely do you define “science”? Theology has been called “the queen of sciences”, though I am not aware of any experimental evidence in theology. Biology certainly has experimental evidence to support it as does evolution within biology. We even have a little experimental evidence for abiogenesis, though we would like to have a lot more before advancing from hypothesis to theory in that area. ID has even less experimental support than abiogenesis.

You have the evidence in your own personal experience. Have you never designed anything? How did you do it? By relying on chance?

I asked you for the evidence for ID and you give me nothing. ID is not science, it is an empty cupboard with a large PR team. If you do not have the evidence then you cannot get into science classrooms. With no evidence ID is not a plausible scientific theory.

You are hardly in a position to criticize ID.

Buddhism is not trying to force itself into science classes in public schools; ID is. In order to get into science classes, ID needs to actually be science. Currently it is not, as is shown by your complete inability to provide us with any experimental support for ID or with a way to falsify ID. I will continue to criticise ID for trying to portray itself as science when it is not.

rossum

 

[Michaelo]

What I have been asking, if you go back and look at the entire thread, is how evolution explains the appearance of the first life form without intelligent design. The odds that life began on its own by happenstance are so **enormously small ** as to be nil. Even many scientists who are not religious concede this. But you seem to be on the side of the atheistic biology establishment which is fighting tooth and nail for the existence of no design whatever, because this turns science into religion.

Let’s be clear, abiogenesis deals with chemical, not biological, evolution.

And which natural law do you refer to that governed the origin of life? It certainly wasn’t evolution.

Perhaps I should have used “physical/scientific laws” rather than natural laws to be more accurate. Here’s a list of them to show you what I mean.

 

[liquidpele]

You’re not up to date with evolutionary theory:
Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe certain ideas about the mechanisms of evolution that were developed from Charles Darwin’s original theory of evolution by natural selection… wikipedia
In that case cosmology and archaeology, amongst other subjects, are not science…

Ha! I can’t believe that is a real term… still think it’s silly sounding though

As for archaeology and cosmology… those are based off of empirical evidence, so not sure what you’re trying to claim there. Sure, there are “ideas” that we come up with to try and explain the things we see… the important part is that those ideas are things that can be dis-proven or further supported by further evidence… as science demands.

 

[greylorn]

Ha! I can’t believe that is a real term… still think it’s silly sounding though

As for archaeology and cosmology… those are based off of empirical evidence, so not sure what you’re trying to claim there. Sure, there are “ideas” that we come up with to try and explain the things we see… the important part is that those ideas are things that can be dis-proven or further supported by further evidence… as science demands.

I see that you, liquidpele, are well qualified to judge silly names.

Archaeologists and cosmologists cannot experiment upon their subjects. They must draw inferences from old data, and inevitably rely strongly upon authority figures within their respective fields.

 

[thunderballs75]

At the original question: In my opinion, not at all. Although I do subscribe to theistic evolution, and I do believe God created the universe ex nihilo.

 

[tonyrey]

Not a problem at all. Please indicate any piece of human DNA that could not have been formed by means of a random mutation from our common ancestor with the chimps. Random mutation is perfectly capable of producing enough variation to allow the evolution of humans.

 

[liquidpele]

I see that you, liquidpele, are well qualified to judge silly names.

Archaeologists and cosmologists cannot experiment upon their subjects. They must draw inferences from old data, and inevitably rely strongly upon authority figures within their respective fields.

Don’t even get me started on your nic

Of course archaeologists and cosmologists can do experiments… are you insane? We can go look for things, we can date very old items, we can look at starts, see the red shift in the spectrum, see gravitational lensing, etc etc. Just because they can’t always prove their theories doesn’t make them not science… it’s the fact that they could find evidence that completely dis-proves them that makes them science. I mean, do you even remember the scientific method from elementary school?

sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

 

[rossum]

You are contradicting yourself. You have stated that Buddhism accounts for the non-material aspect of human beings and now you state that it is the result of random DNA mutations.

The human body is made from a large number of chemicals. The recipe for making and arranging those chemicals is in our DNA. DNA is a material cause of our material bodies. DNA has nothing to do with our non-material parts.

Do you hold chimps morally responsible for their actions? Do they have free will?

You need to learn some more about Buddhism. All of us can be reincarnated as chimps or other animals or may have been so in previous lives. Yes, all chimps are morally responsible for their actions under karma as with all living things - animals, humans and gods.

Why aren’t they put on trial in courts of law?

Animals were sometimes tried, google “medieval animal trials”. Modern human law only applies to humans, not to animals.

Is a snowflake a complex living organism?

Again with the shifting goalposts. You started off asking about complexity - you said nothing about living or non-living complexity. Rather than accept that I have fully answered your question about the non-ID origins of complexity in a snowflake you change the question. That is moving the goalposts. We can move on to discuss living complexity after you have agreed that I have satisfactorily answered your previous question about complexity. No, a snowflake is not a living organism, but your original question was not about living organisms so that fact is irrelevant.

Where is the experimental evidence for the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, free will, responsibility and philosophical systems like Buddhism?

Various animals show self consciousness in the mirror test - dolphins, elephants, all apes and possibly a few birds. Other animals have intelligence, as can be measured by their maze-solving abilities: a mouse is more intelligent than a worm. Given that other animals already have these things to a lesser degree than humans it is not difficult to understand that they evolved.

Mathematicians agree that any number beyond 10 to the power of 50 has a zero probability of occurrence.

You need to read more of Dr Dembski’s work. Your understanding of the mathematics of probability is faulty.

Take two packs of cards. Shuffle both packs together into a random order. The chances of you getting that ordering of the cards is 1 in 104!, or 1 in 1.03 x 10[sup]166[/sup]. Are you telling us that it is impossible to shuffle two packs of cards together? As I said, your understanding of probability is faulty here. Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time. Go and read Dembski on what is and what is not CSI.

Single cell bacteria have about 3,000,000 nucleotides aligned in a specific sequence. So there is no mathematical probability for any known species to be the product of random mutations.

Correct. This is exactly why any biologist will tell you that such a bacterium is not the product of random mutations but of random mutations combined with natural selection, founder effect, genetic drift and all the other mechanisms of evolution. Any supposed mathematical model of evolution that does not include natural selection is worthless because it is not actually a model of evolution.

Is your own experience nothing? Why do you totally ignore it? After all your entire argument stems from your use of intelligence rather than random events.

Evolution is not just random events. Natural selection is a highly non-random process. Is it random that Polar Bears have white fur rather than brown fur? One of the lies creationist websites tell is that evolution is a random process. Evolution is not a random process because natural selection is not a random process.

You have evaded the fact that your combination of Buddhism and evolution infringes the principle of economy. It postulates material and immaterial elements without explaining how they are related or how they originated. It cannot be falsified neither can it be verified by experimentation.

I can observe that intelligence exists. Buddhism does not seek to explain the origin of intelligence, merely to use it in tested ways. I can observe feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness within myself - all elements that Buddhsm says exist. I do not need to know how they arose, it is enough to know that they exist and that they can be used to help me in my journey on the Buddhist path. The parable of the Man Shot with an Arrow is relevant here.

Design by one Supreme Being is an incomparably simpler explanation corresponding to our personal experience and belief in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Truth, goodness, compassion and love are illusions if we are the product of random mutations.

How complex is that Supreme Being? Was it designed? If not then what was its origin? All the same questions that you are asking me also apply to any proposed Supreme Being.

To present only one version of evolution in every state school is a one-sided policy fostered by atheists with an axe to grind…

There is only one version of evolution - the scientific version. ID can be presented in a theology, philosophy or politics class if you want. In order to get into science class ID has to actually be science, which currently it is not.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

There is only one version of evolution - the scientific version. ID can be presented in a theology, philosophy or politics class if you want. In order to get into science class ID has to actually be science, which currently it is not.

So according to you, we also can’t talk in biology class about how life first formed (abiogenesis) either, because there is no science that proves it formed by accident? We’ll just rip that abiogenesis page right out of the textbook?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

As we pass 500 posts and approach 5,000 hits, I want to thank everyone for a stimulating good time. :tiphat::clapping:

Adios!

 

[rossum]

So according to you, we also can’t talk in biology class about how life first formed (abiogenesis) either, because there is no science that proves it formed by accident? We’ll just rip that abiogenesis page right out of the textbook?

First you need to understand that science does not do “proof”. All science can ever do is “the best scientific explanation we have so far”. Newton’s gravitation was never “proved”, which is just as well as it was later replaced by Einstein’s gravitation.

Abiogenesis is science because we have some scientific results supporting it: all the way from Miller-Urey in 1952 to Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions from this year. Abiogenesis is the best scientific explanation of the origin of life we have. ID does not even attempt to explain the origin of life - a living designer cannot be an explanation for the origin of life.

Until ID can come up with something better then abiogenesis, with some caveats, is the best scientific explanation we have. We know that there are many gaps in abiogenesis, but we are making progress in filling them.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

Until ID can come up with something better then abiogenesis, with some caveats, is the best scientific explanation we have. We know that there are many gaps in abiogenesis, but we are making progress in filling them.

By *filling in the many gaps *do you mean we need more intelligently designed experiments to prove that intelligent design was not necessary?

Whew!!!:tsktsk:

:bowdown: BLIND EVOLUTION

“I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

 

[tonyrey]

…PART ONE …

DNA is a material cause of our material bodies. DNA has nothing to do with our non-material parts.

This infringes the principle of economy.

All of us can be reincarnated as chimps or other animals or may have been so in previous lives.

What scientific evidence is there for reincarnation?

Yes, all chimps are morally responsible for their actions under karma as with all living things - animals, humans and gods.

How can chimps be morally responsible for their actions when they don’t even know what morality is?

Yes, all chimps are morally responsible for their actions under karma as with all living things - animals, humans and gods.

Why do you reject God in favour of gods? What about Occam’s razor?

Animals were sometimes tried, google “medieval animal trials”. Modern human law only applies to humans, not to animals.

Animal trials simply prove the ignorance of those who conducted them. Would you conduct them?

No, a snowflake is not a living organism, but your original question was not about living organisms so that fact is irrelevant.

My precise words were “complexity in nature”. Now:

1. Why did simple molecules became more complex?
2. Why did simple organisms became more complex?

Where is the experimental evidence for the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, free will, responsibility and philosophical systems like Buddhism?
Various animals show self consciousness in the mirror test - dolphins, elephants, all apes and possibly a few birds

.
They cannot be conscious of themselves because they do not have an abstract concept of the self. You have not explained how the power of abstract thought, free will and responsibility have evolved.

Take two packs of cards. Shuffle both packs together into a random order. The chances of you getting that ordering of the cards is 1 in 104!, or 1 in 1.03 x 10166. Are you telling us that it is impossible to shuffle two packs of cards together? As I said, your understanding of probability is faulty here. Incredibly unlikely things happen all the time.

I am delighted you admit evolution by chance is incredibly unlikely.
The card-shuffling illustration assumes that **any **ordering of the cards is an acceptable outcome. This is the equivalent of saying almost any ordering of the amino acids would build a functional protein. So whatever happens randomly is “easy” to achieve, regardless of calculations of probability. In reality only one specific sequence of amino acids out of 1060 possible sequences is adequate to produce a properly folding protein which could be used. BTW How often in history have all four suits come up in proper numerical order?

Any supposed mathematical model of evolution that does not include natural selection is worthless because it is not actually a model of evolution.

Even with natural selection the fortuitous origin and development of a bacterium is so improbable it is not even worth considering:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=38373&pageindex=3#page

The enormous improbability of abiogenesis is illustrated by the fact that dedicated teams of specialists in biochemistry working with the most sophisticated equipment for more than half a century have failed miserably to synthesize one living cell.
You are continuing to evade my question. Is your experience nothing? Why do you totally ignore it? After all your entire argument stems from your use of intelligence rather than random events. The fact that you rely on intelligence rather than random events demonstrates that you believe, and act as if, intelligence is more powerful than fortuitous events.

Evolution is not a random process because natural selection is not a random process.

Natural selection is not a random process but it selects from the possibilities presented by random mutations. The **primary **mechanism of evolution is a succession of random mutations, i.e. fortuitous events, and therefore evolution is ultimately due to Chance - according to NeoDarwinists.