Hello Doctor.
I do not think of creation as supernatural. I do think of it as reflecting certain principles and processes ordained by a super natural deity. It is those principles and processes that are the proper province of science.
When science dismisses the possibility that nature contains procedural references (principles and processes) it is denying the reality that I find most reasonable.
Random selection is not a scientifically defensible principle. Atheists who insist that evolution is random are doing theological dogmatics. I do not have a problem with their doing this if they are honest about their starting points.
The critical issue in this debate is that nature either does or does not reflect its uncaused cause. The Big Bang either contains the seeds of everything that has followed or everything that has followed exists by pure happenstance. That is the nature of the intellectual struggle we are engaged in.
Either there is purpose or everything is meaningless. Which universe do you choose to live in?
In point of fact, which universe is it possible to do science in? Only if reality exists by virtue of orderly structure is science possible.
'Random selection', whatever it is, has nothing to do with evolution, in which the selection is anything but random.
i don't think darwin ever talked about "random selection". i think he talked about random mutations. selection, in darwinian theory, was far from random.
any biologists out there who could clarify this?
are you talking about a plan/purpose or about strict determinism?
these are not the same things.