It is apparent that it's you who can't deal with it.
As long as God is defined as a guiding intelligence, sciencists can look for evidence of intentional vs unintentional design in evolution. Things that are difficult to explain by mechanistic process leave room for believing in an intelligent designer. Things that are proven impossible to occur, (or at least unlikely to the point of astronomically high odds against it) actually do prove, statistically, a hidden, intelligent designer. Most people think of an intelligent designer as God, but God, per se, is not the issue.
I am not sure that irreducible complexity has been proven, or will be. As to the statistical likelihood of mutations producing healthy, viable new species, I am in serious doubt. However, that's a question, precisely the central question now at issue. It is ongoing as we speak. What ticks me off is how most defenders of the traditional neo-Darwinian explanations cannot, and will not, even entertain the notion of ID. As if it were inherently irrational from a scientific perspective ('that does not compute'). I say it is NOT irrational, since science is very good at distinguishing chance coindicence from intentional results. Ask any forensic scientist.
Note that I am not questioning 99% of evolution that you find in textbooks. Nor am I demanding recognition of ID or any other new theory as equal to the current theory. In fact, I would reject out-of-hand most of what it touted as Creation Science because it does contradict established facts.
If one were to visit a planet in a distant solar system, and if one found the unmistakeable ruins of a building, one would reasonably conclude that intelligent beings designed it. Now the DNA that builds and runs our bodies is on the order of millions of times more complex that a mere building. In the absence of a scientific demonstration of just how that DNA molecule arose, or could have been created solely by natural forces, I say the hypothesis of an intelligent creator is the most rational explanation. The same applies to the formation of new species, although the case for an intelligent designer is much weaker, since mutations are known to occur, and thus the possibility (but not the likelihood) of natural selection may account for all the billions of species that exist and have existed on Earth.
Well, that's it and have a good day, BroJoeK.
-- ARFAR
Nonsense.
I am merely explaining what you should have learned in science class: that "science" as such deals only with natural causes of natural phenomena.
So, by definition, if you introduce some super-natural explanation (i.e., God), then it is no longer "science" and now becomes some other subject such as theology or philosophy -- and those are not matters that science, by definition, can speak to.
But I can speak to them all day long, and will if you wish to debate them.
ARFAR: "As long as God is defined as a guiding intelligence, sciencists can look for evidence of intentional vs unintentional design in evolution."
Then it would be an exercise in theology, or philosophy, but not science.
Indeed, remember this: there is no scientific hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" which can be tested or falsified, so any such assumption must be an act of faith, which of course falls outside the realm of science.
ARFAR: "Things that are difficult to explain by mechanistic process leave room for believing in an intelligent designer.
Things that are proven impossible to occur, (or at least unlikely to the point of astronomically high odds against it) actually do prove, statistically, a hidden, intelligent designer. "
All analyses along these lines that I've seen are bogus to the max -- and insults to the intelligence of readers.
And the reason should be obvious: if we say of everything we don't yet understand, "God did it", then every new discovery -- and every new explanation -- pushes God further and further away from the here and now.
But the real Truth of the matter is that regardless of whether we think we understand the natural causes and effects of any particular phenomenon, God is still the Creator of all, still the Reason for all, and still the Purpose Giver for everything we see.
So, God's role in evolution is independent of whether we think we understand just precisely how He accomplish any particular miracle of life on Earth.
Indeed, you have to suppose that God has a great sense of humor, and hugely enjoys watching our little scientists noodling and scratching their heads over some new mystery that God left for them to figure out.
And like any good Father, God must celebrate every time His children score well on a test, or graduate to the next grade.
ARFAR: "As to the statistical likelihood of mutations producing healthy, viable new species, I am in serious doubt.
However, that's a question, precisely the central question now at issue. It is ongoing as we speak. "
No it's not. There's no debate on this, not amongst scientists.
And the reason, I've tried to explain now many times is: in nature itself, there is no such thing as a "species".
The word "species" (and all such: breed, sub-species, genus, order, family, etc.) is strictly a scientific construct intended to help us understand what nature does.
But in nature itself, there are only various populations of creatures, some of which can interbreed and others which cannot.
If one sub-group gets somehow separated from its main population and for many generations begins to evolve on its own, then they will eventually reach the point where they can no longer successfully interbreed with their original group.
I've mentioned some well known examples -- from zebras, donkeys and horses, to brown and polar bears, to elephants, mammoths & mastodons.
The case of horses and donkeys is particularly interesting, because here we see evolution "caught in the act", so to speak, of changing a sub-species which can interbreed into a separate species which cannot.
ARFAR: "In the absence of a scientific demonstration of just how that DNA molecule arose, or could have been created solely by natural forces, I say the hypothesis of an intelligent creator is the most rational explanation. "
It is certainly not, and for several reasons, including:
First and foremost, it makes God's role in nature dependent on whether or not some scientist can discover a natural mechanism -- it means that every new scientific discovery pushes the unknown and God further and further away from the here and now.
And that should be ludicrous.
Second, the issue is never "did God do it?", but always "how did God do it?".
Does God intervene on a daily basis to put things back on course, or did He design the Universe from the beginning to produce the results we see?
I believe the latter.
I also think (contrary to what Einstein said) that God is a great gambler who loves the actions of seemingly "random" events, but for whom all the decks are stacked, and all the dice are loaded to produce the results He intended from the beginning.
ARFAR: "The same applies to the formation of new species, although the case for an intelligent designer is much weaker, since mutations are known to occur, and thus the possibility (but not the likelihood) of natural selection may account for all the billions of species that exist and have existed on Earth."
And that is just the mind-set I'm trying to steer you away from.
God's role as "Intelligent Designer" has nothing to do with whether mutations and natural selection alone can account for "all the billions of species that exist and have existed on Earth."
Can't you see it?
God designed the system perfectly, from the beginning, to produce the results we see today.
There is no need -- unless He wants to -- for God to, in effect, "get His hands dirty" by mucking around in the day-to-day wanderings of DNA mutations.
Remember, God is in no hurry -- if it takes a million years, or a billion years, to accomplish His purpose, that's all the same to Him.
So, the Universe is designed to produce us, and now some 14 billion years later, here we are!
Thank God!!
:-)