Same here. But some FRevolutionists find this intuitive notion highly controversial...even anathema. Indeed, they have gone so far as to say that evolution is the study of natural phenomena that give the “appearance” of design. They remind me of Buddhists who seek to convince mankind that all is illusion. They have even adopted a kind of yin and yang (random mutation plus natural selection).
What great faith those evos display; to deny the intelligence behind a code when by their own admission it gives the *appearance* of design.
Evos are constantly demanding evidence of intelligence or design and here we have it and they even admit it and still turn around and deny it.
If natural phenomena gives the appearance of design, why make it so complicated? Why try so hard to deny the obvious? Why look for explanations to show that the appearance of design is just happenstance? They’re making it so much more complicated than it is in their desperate attempts to deny a creator.
KISS
Really.