I already responded to your two previous points in a posting which will probably now follow this one. Now I respond to the last two points
If you see 'HELP' written on an island beach in rocks, do you conclude that the random action of the waves did it? Only if you can utterly rule out any involvement of creative intelligence- to a practically impossible degree.
That is one of the examples of the flawed logic that the intelligent design proponents always throw up. Being a person who is literate and living in human communities, why would I assume that the word help was a result of random action of waves, any more than, say, a house on a lonely seashore? There is a better example of this in the form of a raised piece of sea floor known as “Adams Bridge” connecting Sri Lanka to India which is easily observed from outer space. There is a Hindu epic similar to Homer’s
Illiad among the Hindu religious texts which has a story in which a monkey god, named Hanuman, created a bridge from India to Sri Lanka to allow the armies of the hero, Ram, to cross over and defeat the Lankan king, Ravana to win back his kidnapped wife Sita. Practitioners of Hindu fundamentalism, which is becoming popular in a parallel manner to Christian fundamentalism in the U.S., say that this raised land is the remains of Hanuman’s bridge because they can't conceive that the random action of waves could create something so consistent with their myth. Except that you find it to be a regular feature connecting many islands to their mainlands and scientific analysis has found that it is due
regular wave action, not gods or random forces, that occurs in a regular manner in similar situations of wind and current between islands and mainlands. The upshot is that if you see something happening in a patterned and regular way, then you first look for an explanation in the regular forces at work.
As I noted above and have repeated in other forums here so often, diverse forms of life that emerge through natural selection do no arise randomly. They are determined by a combination of simple mechanisms listed above, driven by the Laws of Thermodynamics, and they involve molecular and particle theory among other basic elements and forces of science. This claim is simply a misrepresentation made to deceive people who have have no understanding of the the theory despite its simplicity.
The only random element is the mutations which provide the raw materials, so to speak, which under normal circumstances form new combinations of nucleotides that produce new enzymes allowing for modified and new structures and processes. When these give advantage, the organism having it will over time will produce more offspring and the proportion of population having it will grow in relation to those who don't. More often than not mutation won't be viable and the changed organism won't survive to reproduce more and the population won’t change. That in the most simple terms is at the heart of natural selection.
Mutations must be random because what changes will be advantageous cannot be anticipated beforehand and attempts to change imposed from outside will more likely be maladaptive. For this reason the nucleus of the cells of multicellular organisms only allow information to go out of the nucleus not into it. This is evident in domesticated animals and plants in which humans did their own selection, which are only able to flourish with the input of human energy to make a protective that removes competing plants and animals and supplies nourishment and protection. Industrialized agriculture represents its most extreme form, requiring much more energy derived from fossil fuels to grow and harvest the plants than obtained from them. If humans stopped the inputs their domesticates would soon die or be bred out of existence. Again, the process of the selection of these mutations is anything but random, determined by what advantage can be grabbed by it. Over the long term divergences and new organisms arise.
The irony is that although intelligent design picked on it for being random, mutations as we understand them are not essential to Darwin's theory. DNA had not yet been discovered, and all Darwin knew was that new features, which were at that time called "monstrosities," would appear in organisms allowing them to subsequently be selected if they gave advantage. He did not even understand the mechanism that they could persist over generations. Darwin had attempted to understand it by breeding pigeons, but the features of pigeons are determined by multiple combinations of genes, multiple chromosomes, and other variables, which prevented Darwin from isolating the the mechanism. Darwin's contemporary, Gregor Mendel, had discovered the mechanism by breeding peas, which by luck don't have such variables and did allow him to isolate the process. Unfortunately when Mendel presented his results to the academy of scientists, nobody understood him and his paper disappeared until the process was rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century. I think later Mendel tried to reproduce his observations using something like switch grass, which like Darwin's pigeons had too many variables and Mendel returned to focusing on the duties of a monk.
But the opposite is not true, you can have the waves, you can have the multiverses, creative intelligence is still the least improbable explanation where merely allowed the slightest possibility of existing
Here I disagree. Multiverses and worm holes are the simplest explanations for the inconsistencies that have emerged between our our theory and observations. They seem complex because of the complexity of the elements they deal with, basically a math that I don't understand. But the hypotheses are developed by extension of simple principles. Natural selection in contrast is an extremely simple theory with basically five or six essential elements, allowing, in Darwin's words, "from so simple a beginning" the creation of all the complexity of life and moreover the complexity of ecosystems of the planet and the planet itself as a living entity, called by the ecologist J. Stan Rowe, "God incarnate." The result is complex due to the multiplicity of different elements and interactions it created, but the mechanisms for creating this multiplicity is simple. Because of its simplicity it does not require an intelligent being.
