And you are again supposing that “random” somehow means “beyond the power of God” which is absolutely blasphemous; NOTHING is beyond the power of God.
And because your prefer Creationism you will always have to reject the evidence of Science whenever you think it contradicts the way you INSIST God must have done things. Moreover I.D. INSISTS that God is an incompetent designer that could not create living systems that are adaptable to a changing environment but must intercede on their behalf to derive the adaptations necessary.
I thought we both agreed that God is in control, and than that random is a word that only has meaning with respect to our own perspective. Unfortunately, Darwinists see randomness to the core, whereas Creationists recognize that God is in control.
==And because your prefer Creationism you will always have to reject the evidence of Science whenever you think it contradicts the way you INSIST God must have done things.
Again, you have it completely backwards. You will always have to reject God's creation whenever you think it contradicts Darwin's fairytale.
==Moreover I.D. INSISTS that God is an incompetent designer that could not create living systems that are adaptable to a changing environment but must intercede on their behalf to derive the adaptations necessary.
I think you are being a tad uncharitable. ID limits itself to finding design in nature. ID doesn't go nearly far enough IMHO. But apparently the very prospect of looking for design in nature drives you up the wall. Why are you so threatened by that? Does it all come down to your faith in Darwin's ToE?
Science taught the godless way leads to exactly this kind of misunderstanding not only of science but issues of faith and concepts of God.