Even young-earth creationists acknowledge evolution happens. It is true.
...who are these "young-earth creationists" you speak of? Do they believe that the creative "days" described in Genesis chapter 1 are 24 hours long? (Not true!) Do they believe that the first human couple were Adam and Eve? (This is absolutely true!) Who are these "guys?"
If you want to claim certain changes are the result of an intelligence, you still need to provide a method by which those changes are accomplished for your suggestion to be science.
The "method" we subscribe to is similar to the expression made by biologist and Harvard professor Louis Agassiz who wrote that the living world shows “premeditation, wisdom, greatness” and that a major purpose of natural history is to analyze “the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe.”
...exactly WHAT methods do you subscribe to in the evolutionary "process?"
Is "evolution" really scientific? The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, p. 19.)
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey, p. 199.
According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists .*.*. argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. .*.*. Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”— p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” —Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138.
Selection is not random. Some changes can be explained through selection, other changes can not. For example, there is no selective mechanism that explains why primates can not produce Vitamin C.
....I really wanted to sink my teeth into this one....but it seems you did it for me! So if humans cannot produce there own vitamin C....but can get it from a large variety of fruits and vegetables easily assessable on our planet earth, doesn't that argue for intelligent design?
