The Toolbox argument against Intelligent Design

[Nils]

Evolution by natural selection does NOT require an "intelligence" behind it since the "selection" process is "automatic".

I agree but there are some persons that claim that the existence of animals and plants are an inidcation of an intelligent creator.

Do you believe such things are an indicator to the contrary?

Yes, in some way. The distribution of traits and species etc indicates that there is no creator, according to the Toolbox argument.
Nils

[Kurieuo]

The argument generally put forward by those like Dembski, Meyer and Behe are against forms of Darwinian evolution where there is a pure dependance upon natural selection acting upon random mutations. The downfall of such ID figureheads are that they allowed the umbrella to stretch far and wide and didn't exclude Creationists, and then they let Creationists run away with their umbrella.

Yet, Process Structuralism on the other hand is much more neutral. At least, it is as neutral as saying that the design of an acorn is to grow into an oak tree having a trunk, bark, branches, leaves, suck in carbon dioxide, etc. The end goal of an acorn, and its natural potentiality as such, is to become an oak tree. It can't grow into a eucalyptus tree or something entirely distinct. There is a process and structure which will always result in an acorn growing into an oak tree.

Now one might argue that since there is an end goal, a telos to an acorn, that this therefore implies God. And, such people might be correct. Yet, it is hardly something which troubles those who have no belief in God's existence. Such are quite fine with accepting an acorns nature and the telos within are an embedded part of the natural processes in the physical world.

I don't understand why you bring Structuralism into the discussion. Darwinian Evolution (or rather The Evolutionary Theory TET) is by the most convincing theory and is embraced by almost all biologists.

A peripheral scan of scientific journals shows that the scope of "Evolutionary Theory" far extends outside the boundaries of Darwinian Evolution and even a modern synthesis of a Neo-Darwinian framework.

You don't understand why bring Structuralism into the discussion, or just don't understand Structuralism? I mention it, because you appear rather naive in your evolutionary views. Sorry, but if you tend to think it is something proposed by Theists when various biological scientists talk of such structures (i.e., see below), well it kind of shows a lack in your knowledge here.

Michael Denton argued for laws of form by which Platonic universals or "Types" are self-organised. Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin proposed biological "spandrels", features created as a byproduct of the adaptation of nearby structures. Gerd B. Müller and Stuart A. Newman argued that the appearance in the fossil record of most of the current phyla in the Cambrian explosion was "pre-Mendelian" evolution caused by physical factors.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(biology))

The follow-on ramifications of such, as I see you readily recognise given your evident repulsion to such ideas (perhaps more since it runs against the vein of your argument/s??), has much relevance to philosophical discussions i.e., whether there is a supreme intelligence who embedded these structures into the physical fabric (i.e., laws) of our world.

[DBowling]

For me the strongest arguments against the adequacy of Darwinistic Evolution come from 40 years of experimentation demonstrating what random mutation and natural selection can and cannot do at the molecular level.

In 2010 Michael Behe wrote an interesting paper for The Quarterly Review of Biology titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721

From the Abstract of the Article

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of
basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under
particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to
examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether
a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that
was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it
feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular
emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades.
I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss
or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the
prominence of such mutations.

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing
modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

FCTs as defined by Behe are:

In this review, I focus on adaptive evolution by gain, loss, or modification of what I term Functional Coded elemenTs (FCTs). An FCT is a discrete but not necessarily contiguous region of a gene that, by means of its nucleotide sequence, influences the production, processing, or biological activity of a particular nucleic acid or protein, or its specific binding to another molecule.

A high level overview of Behe's article can be found here:
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/micha ... ule_of_ad/

Here are a couple of key points

” In essence, what Behe means is that mutations that cause loss-of-FCT are going to be far more likely and thus far more common than those which gain a functional coding element. In fact, he writes: “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.”

In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs.

The bottom line is forty years of evolutionary experiments have demonstrated that at the molecular level, the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are incapable of producing either the complexity and structure that we find in the DNA of life today or the changes that we find in the fossil record.

[Nils]

What can non-intelligent, blind, random things do? First, can they create themselves? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that we (beings with intelligence) can scarcely understand ourselves. And yet we're led to believe that blind things are more intelligent that the best human minds on the planet? And the Big Bang shows such things happening - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these extraordinary designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in the very first minutes of the Big Bang - as where mere minutes before, NOTHING physically existed. Explain that without an intelligence, and then get back to me! Don't babble along with pointless arguments about secondary and totally dependent processes which would have begun many billions of years later - least not when it comes to arguments over an intelligent Designer behind the universe!

1. Blind random processes may create themselves but that is not common. They are often more “intelligent” than the best humans minds. This is sometimes used in technology nowadays. (Not very often because it still takes lot of computer time).

2. I want to discuss my Toolbox argument. If you want to discuss Big Bang or some other things, please start another thread. If you don’t want to discuss what I want to discuss your are free to not comment this thread.

3. I am not sure who’s post is most suited to fit the definition of “babble”: “Talk rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited, or incomprehensible way “

Nils

[PaulSacramento]

We do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... _selection

Nils

We don't, don't confuse what happens with WHY it happens.

[abelcainsbrother]

For me the strongest arguments against the adequacy of Darwinistic Evolution come from 40 years of experimentation demonstrating what random mutation and natural selection can and cannot do at the molecular level.

In 2010 Michael Behe wrote an interesting paper for The Quarterly Review of Biology titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721

From the Abstract of the Article

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of
basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under
particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to
examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether
a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that
was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it
feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular
emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades.
I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss
or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the
prominence of such mutations.

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing
modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

FCTs as defined by Behe are:

In this review, I focus on adaptive evolution by gain, loss, or modification of what I term Functional Coded elemenTs (FCTs). An FCT is a discrete but not necessarily contiguous region of a gene that, by means of its nucleotide sequence, influences the production, processing, or biological activity of a particular nucleic acid or protein, or its specific binding to another molecule.

A high level overview of Behe's article can be found here:
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/micha ... ule_of_ad/

Here are a couple of key points

” In essence, what Behe means is that mutations that cause loss-of-FCT are going to be far more likely and thus far more common than those which gain a functional coding element. In fact, he writes: “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.”

In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs.

The bottom line is forty years of evolutionary experiments have demonstrated that at the molecular level, the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are incapable of producing either the complexity and structure that we find in the DNA of life today or the changes that we find in the fossil record.

Adaptation is not evolution.It was known life can adapt to certian environments before evolution became a theory.In this thread I have already refuted the theory of evolution.And now that I have I'd like to show you how easy it is to destroy the theory of evolution using the Gap Theory.

This is because Christians have only used young earth creationism and Intelligent Design against evolution and have not succeeded in defeating the theory of evolution. If evolution is not even close to being true as I've shown then this means all of our history that is looked at from an evolutionary view-point is wrong.

Yet the fossil record still exists and so which theory better fits the fossil evidence? The theory of evolution that still has no credibile mechanism for life evolving? Or the idea that there was a former world that once existed on this earth over billions of years until it perished completely,then God made this world we now live in?

By comparing the fossil record to the kinds of life we have in this world we have evidence of a totally different kind of world that once existed on this earth until it perished. We have evidence the former world did indeed exist but also we have evidence that it was a totally different kind of world than this world we now live in is. So that the evidence confirms the Gap Theory correct when it tells us a former world existed that perished then there was a gap of time until God made this world we now live in.

The former world had trilobites,dinosaurs,birds,hominids,neanderthals,etc in it while this world is much different and has shrimp,crabs,alligators,crocodiles,birds,humans created in God's image,etc. We can definately see evidence for two different worlds and this is just a very,very brief look at the fossil record of the kinds of life that once roamed this earth in a totally different kind of world than this world we now live in is. As you can see the Gap Theory is much more believable based on what the fossil record reveals than the theory of evolution is. A "Lost world" better fits the fossil record than the theory of evolution does.

Now,just imagine had Christians been teaching the Gap Theory from the bible while going through the fossil record and teaching how this interpretation is correct evolution would have been destroyed long ago but creationists used the wrong interpretations and now most of the world accepts evolution.

[Kurieuo]

What can non-intelligent, blind, random things do? First, can they create themselves? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that we (beings with intelligence) can scarcely understand ourselves. And yet we're led to believe that blind things are more intelligent that the best human minds on the planet? And the Big Bang shows such things happening - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these extraordinary designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in the very first minutes of the Big Bang - as where mere minutes before, NOTHING physically existed. Explain that without an intelligence, and then get back to me! Don't babble along with pointless arguments about secondary and totally dependent processes which would have begun many billions of years later - least not when it comes to arguments over an intelligent Designer behind the universe!

1. Blind random processes may create themselves but that is not common. They are often more “intelligent” than the best humans minds. This is sometimes used in technology nowadays. (Not very often because it still takes lot of computer time).

Before you can state "Blind random processes may create themselves", you must first prove than something can be random at all. "Random" as I see doesn't exist at all. Even with computers, what is called "random" follows the same randomizer algorithm each and every time, but this means it isn't truly random.

To truly believe in a fundamental way that true randominity exists is to in fact believe in magic. Perhaps that is why you also don't see PSR as a binding principle. But, I'd be interested to hear your arguments, if you have any, for the existence of true randomness. Indeed, such even seems counter to your deterministic beliefs if I recall those correctly.

[Philip]

K: "Random" as I see doesn't exist at all.

Actually, I agree!

Perhaps a better phrasing would be, "blind, non-intelligent things that just happen to exist, in no particular order or approximates." To NOT be random suggests some sort of intelligent control - which is the reason I used the word. Of course, some surmise that the universe "just IS intelligent," and either always has been or developed "intelligence-like capabilities." But sophistication, design, organization, etc. require intelligence. But yes, to believe such is to believe in magic!

Merriam Webster: Definition of random

1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern
b : made, done, or chosen at random

read random passages from the book

2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence

random processes

b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence

a random sample

; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements

random sampling

[PaulSacramento]

The view of randomness in evolution is:
A mutation is caused by environmental factors, such as solar radiation.
That mutation, whatever it is, is a random one- there is no way to predict what that mutation will be.

[Stu]

What can non-intelligent, blind, random things do? First, can they create themselves? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that we (beings with intelligence) can scarcely understand ourselves. And yet we're led to believe that blind things are more intelligent that the best human minds on the planet? And the Big Bang shows such things happening - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these extraordinary designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in the very first minutes of the Big Bang - as where mere minutes before, NOTHING physically existed. Explain that without an intelligence, and then get back to me! Don't babble along with pointless arguments about secondary and totally dependent processes which would have begun many billions of years later - least not when it comes to arguments over an intelligent Designer behind the universe!

1. Blind random processes may create themselves but that is not common. They are often more “intelligent” than the best humans minds. This is sometimes used in technology nowadays. (Not very often because it still takes lot of computer time).

Before you can state "Blind random processes may create themselves", you must first prove than something can be random at all. "Random" as I see doesn't exist at all. Even with computers, what is called "random" follows the same randomizer algorithm each and every time, but this means it isn't truly random.

To truly believe in a fundamental way that true randominity exists is to in fact believe in magic. Perhaps that is why you also don't see PSR as a binding principle. But, I'd be interested to hear your arguments, if you have any, for the existence of true randomness. Indeed, such even seems counter to your deterministic beliefs if I recall those correctly.

It sounds like you are saying that free will doesn't exist, because we make our choices (free will) on random events that occur daily.

[DBowling]

The view of randomness in evolution is:
A mutation is caused by environmental factors, such as solar radiation.
That mutation, whatever it is, is a random one- there is no way to predict what that mutation will be.

Let me disagree slightly with your statement.

40 years of scientific experiments studying the results of 'random mutation' (whatever that means) and 'natural selection' do show a very definitive tendency.

“the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.”

These results of 40 years of scientific studies specifically observing what the Darwinian processes of 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' are capable of doing at the molecular level demonstrate that...
'random mutation' (or what we define as random mutation) and 'natural selection' by themselves are incapable of producing the structure and complexity that we observe in the DNA of life today and they are also incapable of producing the change and rate of change that we see in the fossil record.

This is not a philosophical assertion. This is a result of 40 years of scientific study specifically observing 'random mutation' and 'natural selection' in tens of thousands of generations of bacteria.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Speaking of which, I think we should remind ourselves of the possibility of ET life, particularly on Mars or the upper skies of Venus.
If there is simple life there, then maybe they are Earth based because of panspermia.
How would they react to regular Earth life? If they contacted us, would be hostile, neutral, or would want to phone home on account of our white blood cells?

[Kurieuo]

What can non-intelligent, blind, random things do? First, can they create themselves? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that we (beings with intelligence) can scarcely understand ourselves. And yet we're led to believe that blind things are more intelligent that the best human minds on the planet? And the Big Bang shows such things happening - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these extraordinary designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in the very first minutes of the Big Bang - as where mere minutes before, NOTHING physically existed. Explain that without an intelligence, and then get back to me! Don't babble along with pointless arguments about secondary and totally dependent processes which would have begun many billions of years later - least not when it comes to arguments over an intelligent Designer behind the universe!

1. Blind random processes may create themselves but that is not common. They are often more “intelligent” than the best humans minds. This is sometimes used in technology nowadays. (Not very often because it still takes lot of computer time).

Before you can state "Blind random processes may create themselves", you must first prove than something can be random at all. "Random" as I see doesn't exist at all. Even with computers, what is called "random" follows the same randomizer algorithm each and every time, but this means it isn't truly random.

To truly believe in a fundamental way that true randominity exists is to in fact believe in magic. Perhaps that is why you also don't see PSR as a binding principle. But, I'd be interested to hear your arguments, if you have any, for the existence of true randomness. Indeed, such even seems counter to your deterministic beliefs if I recall those correctly.

It sounds like you are saying that free will doesn't exist, because we make our choices (free will) on random events that occur daily.

Who me? No. I believe free will does exist, and it isn't based upon whether or not something is random.

Rather, those who'd argue our thoughts, decisions and actions are ultimately determined by physical factors external to us (indeed even that the physical forces are "us"), will then often then argue in the content of biological evolution that there are truly random events -- events which aren't determinable that didn't happen by 1) necessity, or 2) design.

So there seems to be an inconsistency here with those who think in this way. On one hand, they can't fathom how something couldn't be a determined product of physical forces (i.e., humans with free will). On the other hand, they claim something is free from being determinable (i.e., natural selection acting upon random mutations).

Now the next layer of that, is to read it into the context of Process Structuralism, advocates of such will say that we see the same structures in lifeforms appearing over and over again (i.e., "convergent evolution"), that this points to the fact that the physical laws at work will NECESSARILY produce the same structures and the same/similar lifeforms -- akin to acorns always growing into oak trees.

This is much different from Darwinian forms of evolution wherein it is argued that lifeforms evolve through a mechanism of random chance. This is something Nils has been arguing for, which the central figures who spawned the 90s ID movement questioned and got stigmatised as being Creationists in cheap tuxedos over -- for critiquing and challenging Darwinian evolutionary theory. Whether you read books from Behe, Meyer, Dembski, they all question the same thing from their professions and as such unique vantage points.

And, as I tried explaining in my previous posts, it is even a logical condundrum to define exactly what one means by "random". For, if we know all the values of the forces at play before something happens, and have a calculator sophisticated enough to calculate all those values, then we'd have a 100% prediction rate. It is just our lack of knowledge of the variables at play and their values that makes it seem to us such is all "random". HOWEVER, should we know all the variables, we'd be able to predict (if we let it be a given that we evolved from sludge) that we would indeed eventually have our human species and even the time we'd arise.

So then, I'd argue one is in a difficult position to logically argue for Natural Selection acting upon Random Mutations, the emphasis being on "random". Rather in "Nature" itself there is a necessity imparted by the laws of nature, natural forces, that result in the potentiality of Natural Laws orienting mutational forces towards set forms of species.

Now, once that is realised, the question as to why these laws are oriented towards certain structures may arise. Yet, for the Atheist it shouldn't be any more of a puzzle than an acron always growing into a oak tree. Like the beginning of the universe, "it just is", "just happens", and no further explanation needed. That algae will evolve into vertebrates and eventually sentient beings over and over again, or that we see many convergences in lifeforms that must evolved their structures separately (if you grant the evolution of such), says to me the dice are heavily loaded whether we're talking about 1) necessity, or 2) design.

[Nils]

What can non-intelligent, blind, random things do? First, can they create themselves? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that we (beings with intelligence) can scarcely understand ourselves. And yet we're led to believe that blind things are more intelligent that the best human minds on the planet? And the Big Bang shows such things happening - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these extraordinary designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in the very first minutes of the Big Bang - as where mere minutes before, NOTHING physically existed. Explain that without an intelligence, and then get back to me! Don't babble along with pointless arguments about secondary and totally dependent processes which would have begun many billions of years later - least not when it comes to arguments over an intelligent Designer behind the universe!

1. Blind random processes may create themselves but that is not common. They are often more “intelligent” than the best humans minds. This is sometimes used in technology nowadays. (Not very often because it still takes lot of computer time).

Before you can state "Blind random processes may create themselves", you must first prove than something can be random at all. "Random" as I see doesn't exist at all. Even with computers, what is called "random" follows the same randomizer algorithm each and every time, but this means it isn't truly random.

To truly believe in a fundamental way that true randominity exists is to in fact believe in magic. Perhaps that is why you also don't see PSR as a binding principle. But, I'd be interested to hear your arguments, if you have any, for the existence of true randomness. Indeed, such even seems counter to your deterministic beliefs if I recall those correctly.

Kurieuo and Philip,
this is really OT, but I’ll try to answer shortly.

Computers work with quasi randomness. See e.g.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness.
I don’t have to “prove” physics to believe in it. Physical science doesn’t prove anything. It only finds out what the evidences seem to indicate. I think that what is said in the wikipedia reference is well founded.

Yes, if randomness exists it is magic, as well as gravitation or electromagnetic waves. But what is meant by “true” randomness? What is the alternative?

My relation to determinism is simply: If determinism is valid there is no free will. If randomness is added still there is still no free will.
It’s because of the statement above it might be thought that I presume determinism, but I don’t. It’s just that it is easier to discuss free will assuming determinism.

What I know is that computer algorithms mimicking biological evolution and using quasi randomness can generate knowledge that is beyond human intelligence. That is a tool that is used regularly in electronic developments even if it is costly, lot of computers are needed.

So Philip’s statement “But sophistication, design, organization, etc. requires intelligence. “ is evidently false.

So, any comments about my Toolbox argument?

Nils

[DBowling]

Now the next layer of that, is to read it into the context of Process Structuralism, advocates of such will say that we see the same structures in lifeforms appearing over and over again (i.e., "convergent evolution"), that this points to the fact that the physical laws at work will NECESSARILY produce the same structures and the same/similar lifeforms -- akin to acorns always growing into oak trees.

So then, I'd argue one is in a difficult position to logically argue for Natural Selection acting upon Random Mutations, the emphasis being on "random". Rather in "Nature" itself there is a necessity imparted by the laws of nature, natural forces, that result in the potentiality of Natural Laws orienting mutational forces towards set forms of species.

Now, once that is realised, the question as to why these laws are oriented towards certain structures may arise. Yet, for the Atheist it shouldn't be any more of a puzzle than an acron always growing into a oak tree. Like the beginning of the universe, "it just is", "just happens", and no further explanation needed. That algae will evolve into vertebrates and eventually sentient beings over and over again, or that we see many convergences in lifeforms that must evolved their structures separately (if you grant the evolution of such), says to me the dice are heavily loaded whether we're talking about 1) necessity, or 2) design.

I think any 'naturalistic' view of evolutionary processes (including the toolbox premise) runs into the same difficulties as 'random mutation' when the observable scope and rate of naturalistic evolution at the molecular level in 40 years of experimentation is contrasted with the scope and rate of evolutionary change required by DNA in life today and the fossil record.

Any inherently naturalistic processes should be repeatable and observable at the molecular level in 40 years of evolutionary experimentation on bacteria. The problem is not just 'random mutation'. The problem is (up to this point) observable naturalistic processes at the molecular level are incapable of providing the scope and rate of change that are required by the complexity and structure in DNA today or the change that we observe in the fossil record.