Please consider the real issue. The issue is whether there is any evidence of some "creator," not whether the Bible, for example, has a literal description of molecular biology. "Evolution," even if it did all it claims to do, does not dismiss any creator. In order to dismiss a creator science must suggest some means life could arise from the dead matter on a previously molten planet. Evolution does not do that. Darwin never claimed to explain the origin of life, only species.
It should be clear then that creationism versus "evolution" is the pretense that if evolution does what it says then no creator is required. That is the false pretense.
In Darwin's time there were many who hoped that evolution would one day extend to explain the origin of life, but those hopes were based on the oversimplified notion of life they got peering through low powered microscopes. They were watching Van Leeuwenhoek's "animalcules."
Grant then that changes in the environment might be slow enough for various changes in species to keep pace. Grant that people around the world, including Bible believers, had been successfully breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. Grant that there is a modification of species in the Bible story of Laban and Jacob. Grant that a thousand years is one day to God as the Bible says. Grant that evolution does not disprove God, the Bible, any creator or intelligent designer. Where is the "proof" positive of an intelligent designer?
Although Darwin added nothing at all to "science" he did add something important to the debate on science. He added what debaters call the "dialectic" of random mutation and natural selection. A dialectic is a set of terms that can make clear what is going on, what is the real issue.
Similarly, it will be by a new dialectic that we prove an intelligent designer. It is and should be already obvious that life is too complicated to have arisen by any random process. All that we need is a dialectic to make that clear, a set of terms to leave our opponents no dodge.
Those critical ideas are that there is "no random event" and all the "agencies of apparent randomness" have "limited characteristics."
Consider the so called "random" patterns in smoke. A common assumption about "random" events is that "anything" is possible. It should be obvious though that not anything is. Smoke will not make a triangle, a square, a five pointed star, or any definite patterns with straight lines. The agency of apparent randomness is fire and straight lines are not a characteristic of that agency or the air currents or soot that arise from it. Although there might well be an infinite array of swirls, all of them are swirls.
If you tie streamers in front of an electric fan they will flutter. There might be an infinite array of flutters, but all of them are flutters.
Swirls are the characteristic of smoke and flutters are the characteristic of streamers.
In the inanimate universe there is no random event. For every action there is only one possible reaction. There are no choices. If you bump a pool ball it can only take one path. The path might curve if the ball is spun, but for any one spin there is only one curve. If you bump a living thing, a dog perhaps, it might go to the left or the right or turn around and bite you. Living things can make choices. Of all living things humans appear to have the most choices, the most "free will."
We might build a squat, spring loaded die tosser that always turns dice two faces in the air before landing. We might build another that turns three faces. The point though is that for any toss there is only one possible outcome, no choices. The "unpredictability" of other dice toss outcomes is only the result of too many inaccessible variables. In longer tosses the elasticity of the dice and table top would be important factors. But nonliving things cannot make any choices. Once released the dice have only one way they can land.
The assumption that an infinite number of things and time somehow made everything possible is wrong. If you have an infinite amount of time, how many copies of the Mona Lisa will smoke make? How many maps of New York City?
There is a curious confusion what the word "random" means, especially in relation to "consciousness." We might say a cart went down a hill randomly if there were no driver or the driver were unconscious. But the dictionary says that random means without a plan or unpredictable or haphazard, and we just noted above that nothing in the inanimate universe is unpredictable. The confusion is likely from the fact that although many events appear unpredictable, that is only because we can't access the data to make a prediction. The data certainly exists, we just don't have access, as with most tosses of dice.
Perhaps then the dialectic should specify that there is no random event in the inanimate universe.
There have been many attempts to develop a dialectic for the establishment of an intelligent designer. They failed before because the terminology left dodges. The Second Law of Thermodynamics was rephrased several times. An attempt was made to establish that "order" does not arise in nature. An attempt was made to establish that "complexity" does not arise in nature.
The mixture of oil and vinegar has been used by amateurs to "prove" that order arises in nature. It is not order that arises, rather it is simplicity. Adding energy, shaking, a mixture of oil and vinegar increases the complexity of the mixture as well as giving it potential energy. Left to itself the mixture loses that energy in settling out, all quite according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The process is similar to rain. Air and water tend to separate out with water at the bottom because it's denser. Adding energy from the sun gets water mixed into the air. Left to itself it will fall down again releasing the potential energy it gained.
Snowflakes have been used by amateurs to "prove" that complexity arises in nature. While certainly complex by some definition, as in the previous example, there is a very simple pattern to it. However "random" the patterns in snowflakes might seem, they are not. Smoke swirls, streamers flutter, and freezing water vapor makes hexagonal patterns. There is no "random" event or creator or exercise of free will, nothing that "complex." No branch of any snowflake had any choice in the matter. There are no copies of the works of Shakespeare in snowflakes. Snowflakes cannot so much as spell "cat."
Nevertheless, because the terms "order" and "complexity" and other aspects involved in thermodynamics are not well defined, opponents of intelligent design were able to continue to dodge the truth.
Having established that there is no "random" event in the inanimate universe we should note that the "disorder" predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics is indeed the natural tendency of the nonliving, inanimate universe.
But we can assemble anything we want, can't we? All we need is an agency of apparent randomness whose characteristics include that assembly.
If we can't find one, we can make one up. The Miller Urey experiment in the early 50s used miniature lightning. Miniature lightning does not occur in nature, at least not caused by the atmospheric phenomena they suggested. To extrapolate from the small sparks they used to much more destructive real lightning was a bit of a stretch then and now. In fact none of the trivial assemblages of this or that minor component of life that scientists have produced in labs has been done with detailed justification for the conditions they used occurring naturally.
Even if we give the scientists that leeway, even if we let them make up conditions with no clear justification, they still cannot describe an agency of apparent randomness or any "naturally" occurring agency to assemble the complex systems required for life. Just as no five story house of cards is built without an intelligent designer, assembling life, thousands of times more complex, from a previously molten planet requires an intelligent designer.
One thing we definitely do not have to do is wait forever. The limited characteristics of agencies present themselves in limited amounts of time. You don't have to watch smoke forever to establish its limited characteristics. In fact waiting two minutes has you covered in most cases. Of course other processes should be observed much longer, but in some very finite amount of time all the characteristics are established.
The notion that if we wait forever anything can happen was the only thing blocking acceptance of an intelligent designer. Finally that notion is defeated.
The certainty of an intelligent designer is as certain as gravity. Therefore it should be called the "law" of intelligent design.
Some people have called for the teaching of "creationism" and "evolution" as though the pair were "competing" or "alternate" theories of anything. It is an embarrassment to this country that it allows such silly people to vote. Evolution and creationism are not "competing" or "alternate" theories as was explained early in this article.
Once a living thing exists it contains the design of the organism in various complex chemical sequence codes; RNA, DNA or enzymes. That is indeed designer enough. No further intelligent designer is necessary then. From the simplicity of dead matter to the complexity of life defies logic. From the complex to the complex defies no logic. There is no mystery there, no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no necessity for an intelligent designer.
It is possible for such a system of copying and recopying to infrequently fail with mostly "unpredictable" results. Since the copying requires energy from the environment, it can fail, for example, if the energy becomes insufficiently available. The result can be described as "random" changes or "mutations" in the codes. As was noted at the outset, evolution, at least as concerns very minor changes in the design of living things, is possible, even without divine intervention.