[nasamn777]

1. The first question is, why are ID proponents shocked to hear that biologists do not posit any particular direction to evolution?

Why would there be any drive toward advancement? Would not lifeforms stay as single cells? The probability problem related to the Second Law of Thermodynamics is applicable to evolution -- the number of states leading to increased entropy far exceed the states that lead to decreased entropy. For evolution, you could say that the number of destructive mutations far exceeds the mutations leading to advancement. The probability of advancement is so small that the time required for evolution is much greater than the available time.

Your statement of the second question shows that you don't understand ID. I state this as an observation and I don't intend to offend you in any fashion. Perhaps you could go to

www.arn.org

and read up on the topic of ID.

Concerning your third question: the mutations are random but the selection is not. The problem is that you must explain how the advancement appears in the first place. Given that life is coupled (the functions are interrelated requiring multiple mutations), the probability of the multiple mutations coalescing into a single genome is too remote.

[Junior]

Would not lifeforms stay as single cells?

Not if being multicellular gave them an edge in the survival game.

[js1138]

Why would there be any drive toward advancement? Would not lifeforms stay as single cells?

Most life is single-celled, by any measure -- numbers, varietiey, weight. Large organisms are at the outer edge of the bell curve.

Concerning your third question: the mutations are random but the selection is not. The problem is that you must explain how the advancement appears in the first place.

That is the explanation. There is no "advancement", just change that survives selection. The mechanisms by which the genome becomes longer are fairly well understood and are observable -- duplications, viral insertions, etc.