[betty boop]

It’s not like anything was ever described as “random” because whoever was describing it didn’t recognize, or have enough data to establish a pattern.

To me, dear tacticalogic, to even use the word "random" is tantamount to a confession of "what we don't know."

Thus all the "random" in the world cannot establish a "pattern" in principle.

Do you believe that only scientific "data" can reveal "patterns?"

Why don't you just try your eyes: The world itself reveals "pattern." And where you see "patterns," you are probably looking at the outworking of natural laws.

Where do you suppose natural (physical & moral) laws come from? If they were the result of an "evolutionary process," then they couldn't be "laws" in principle.

[tacticalogic]

Allowing that could lead to the perception that saying evolution is the result of “random” mutations could just be a misconception resulting from insufficient data, rather than an intentional, calculated act of malevolence against your religious beliefs.