Nor is it scientific. If it were, it could predict the state of species way down the road, especially given millions of years of its so-called "observed" history. Natural selection is an arbitrary determination made after species have performed as they were designed to perform, namely, within their intended limits.
huge, gross, awful error in your premise.
making such *specific* predictions would require an essentially infinite database - among other things necessarily detailing the mass, location, and vector of *everything in the universe* at precision equal to the ultimate particle level.
that's just the tip of the iceberg, and assumes the various uncertainty factors of QM do not apply (which, at a guess, they quite significantly would).
Natural selection certainly is not random.Sure it's scientific. Saying it's not is like a biologist saying that we know a lot about the biology of blunt-force trauma, including how much force, applied where, will kill a person, and then a gadfly piping up and challenging him to predict who's going to die from a blunt-force trauma vs. who's going to die of old age. He can't, but that's irrelevant to whether his specialty is scientific or not. (But the gadfly still walks away feeling trimphant. :-)Nor is it scientific. If it were, it could predict the state of species way down the road, especially given millions of years of its so-called "observed" history. Natural selection is an arbitrary determination made after species have performed as they were designed to perform, namely, within their intended limits.
Nonsense. What are you basing that on?