[Pete]

That is totally unreasonable! It is certain, which means no possibility of the opposite view, that the Darwininian theory of evolution is fact, requiring no proof only evidence.

This is simply untrue. Much of Darwin's work has come to be rejected by scholars and replaced with updated theories.

The Darwininian theory states that random is what works, therefore something non-random is unnecessary.

I point you to Steve Wolfram's newly released "A New Kind of Science" where he concludes that randomness in nature DOES NOT work. Check out Chapter 7.

I have a question, which I ask in all seriousness to those who hold the naturalist view for the origins of life. To what theory to you currently subscribe? I have been looking into this issue recently and it is my understanding that there have been half a dozen or so theories proposed in the last 50 years all of which have fallen out of favor. I am not looking to start a flame war here as I am actually interested in the question presented.

[AndrewC]

I am not looking to start a flame war here as I am actually interested in the question presented.

My tongue was planted firmly in cheek.

[OBAFGKM]

"Much of Darwin's work has come to be rejected by scholars..."

Examples, please. Your claim is somewhat of an urban legend among Creationists. The basic tenets of Darwin's writings have never been successfully refuted.

[ArGee]

I think you may have missed Andrew's sarcasm.

Either that or I saw it when it wasn't there.

Shalom.