[steve-b]

Anything which is true is presentable in a form that anyone can understand.

Nonsense. To take the most obvious example, nobody understands quantum mechanics (some people with advanced mathematical training can manipulate the equations to produce results that can be verified, or not, by experiment, but that is not at all the same thing).

As your entire argument rests upon this false premise, it falls.

The notion that all life and ecological systems, including plant life and insects, started and the process guided by dice throws is what I consider an extraordinary claim.

Your willful ignorance certainly does not help matters. The fact that evolution is driven by natural selection, not mere random chance, is one of the points of science that is simple enough to be understood by anyone possessing enough intelligence to be allowed out without a keeper and enough honesty to be allowed out without a parole officer.

[William Terrell]

Quantum mechanics can be explained in words of one syllable, however, it actual computation can't. But it does not have to. Showing a non-mathmatician the value, truth and effect of quantum mechanics doesn't need the actual computations.

Neither does the progression from one species to another need the actual computations, only the evidence that one led to another.

Nontechnical articles that explain the process of a system to a nontechnical person abound and do a very good job. Hiding in technicalese has always been a method of covering up shoddy science.

A lot of highly technical people in sciences such as biology and other relevant sciences are totally against the notion of intra-species evolution, and they can read and understand the technicalese, and see its flaws. Not only see its flaws, but point them out to a layman so he can understand them.

Natural selection. The process of natural selection is claimed to have started by blind chance. Read you own evolution gurus. If it did not start by blind chance, it being a organized stricture that governs an orderly process, then it must have been created by some intelligent source. If the latter, your premise fails.

Let me say again, both evolution and creation, as these concepts are taught, fail equally. I don't subscribe to either one.

[C.J.W.]

"The fact that evolution is driven by natural selection, not mere random chance, is one of the points of science that is simple enough to be understood..."

And what is qualifies as a "selection" of Nature, does Nature "select" things randomly or are you relying on some sort of deification of Nature in which it "selects" things rationally, purposefully, etc.?

In neoDarwinism it is *random* mutation that creates everything that Nature supposedly "selects" from. So the new biological creator, is at heart, random. This is not the philosophy of the Stoics who found purpose, rationality, etc., revealed in Nature. This is the philosophy of the fundamentally irrational. There is a lot of sniveling about how anyone who disagrees with this type of irrational nonsense "just doesn't understand evolution." or is ignorant, etc. As if continual condescension is supposed to be an argument. The real problem is that there is nothing there to understand except the consistent misunderstanding of those who begin their reasoning without a rationale for rationality.