The point is, when Evos find biological machinery that is finely tuned to produce random results, they have to assume that the finely tuned machinery was produced by random processes, and not design...lest a divine foot get through their materialist door.
Or to put it in the words of Alex Williams, writing for the Journal of Creation (I’m pinging a few others as they have expressed an interest in this subject at one time or another):
Gregor Mendel showed experimentally that—for certain carefully chosen characters—inheritance was carried by paired factors (genes on homologous chromosomes) that dissociate during gamete formation (meiosis) and then recombine randomly (according to the laws of chance) during fertilization. It has ever since been widely assumed among biologists that random natural variation points back to the possibility of a random natural origin. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A random outcome is surprisingly difficult to obtain, and it is always constrained and not open-ended as evolutionists require for ‘goo-to-you-via-the-zoo’ evolution. The tossing of an unbiased coin can produce a random result but only between two possibilities—heads or tails. The tossing of an unbiased die can produce a random result, but only among its six possible faces. Even a computer cannot produce a truly random result because it does calculations and calculations always produce predictable results.17
Truly random outcomes are difficult to obtain because they crucially depend upon the stability of the system that produces them. If Mendel’s pea plants had not reliably produced seeds from independently segregating cell divisions every generation, and had not produced a sufficiently large amount of pollen to ensure independent fertilization events, he could never have discovered the random outcomes that showed him the laws of hybridization. Likewise, coin-tossing produces random outcomes only while the coin remains solidly round and flat, and the die only works if it remains rigid and unbroken. Any system that is capable of continually producing a chance outcome must have a stable core mechanism. Indeed, any system that varies continually in any manner, random or otherwise, without a core of stability will quickly encounter an error catastrophe—changes mount upon changes until the core functionality collapses.
The random variation we observe in biology provides a powerful case for intelligent design. It requires a wellengineered underlying mechanism of stability to protect itself from error catastrophe, and it is not infinitely plastic but constrained to the range of possible outcomes provided by the kinds of gene regulation combinations accessible to it.
Finely tuned anything produced by random processes defies credibility.
I still can't figure how they mock *Goddidit* with a straight face and then offer that *nothing* did it, for no reason, all by itself.
Those are constrained by the possible combinations of chemical bonds the the elements are capable of forming. ID proponents seem to constrain themselves to only considering life to have been intelligently designed. The idea that life is a subsequent consequence of an intelligently designed universe doesn't seem to be something they can fit into that theory.
Thanks for the ping!