"Purpose" in mutations and evolution, take II

This is intended as a follow-up to the thread "Help me understand Intelligent Design" ( http://EvC Forum: Help me understand Intelligent Design -->EvC Forum: Help me understand Intelligent Design ), and specifically to give Ausar-maat a chance to clarify his position. I found the result of that thread not very satisfactory and hope that this one will have better (and clearer) results!Seeing the quite animated discussion, it's clear that Ausar has a certain issue with what he perceives as the currently favoured view on the mechanism(s) behind evolution. But at the same time, it looks like he has no problem with the fact in itself that evolution took place. Is this correct, Ausar?What I was trying to find out is what exactly his position is, and why he feels that way. Why does he feel the need to dismiss the currently favoured view on the mechanism(s) behind evolution as "adequate"? I think there are a few high-level possibilities for the mechanisms:(1) evolution is quite simply the result of completely random mutation + natural selection, and nothing else.(2) evolution is completely random mutation + natural selection together with some other mechanisms like "lateral gene transfer", "sexual selection" and Lyn Margulis' ideas of symbiosis. (and maybe others? I'm no expert)(3) evolution is like (1) or (2), except that the mutations perform better than being totally random. I.e. natural selection has material at its disposal that is already optimized in some way. THIS could indeed be regarded as containing purpose, as Ausar put it. At least in contrast with totally random mutations. And it is this assumption that got him to mention the infamous "EHDI" and references to how we approach organisms as if they were designed with a purpose. (and I still don't understand the point of the latter, lol)The idea of optimized mutations then comes in two varieties: the first variety could be one where the "tuning" is the result of some naturalistic mechanism. This would fall within the realm of science, and could be something analogues to the spontaneous appearance of complexity etc.(4) This is the second variety: evolution is like (3), "optimized", but the optimization of mutations is done by something unspecified and not necessarily naturalistic. Or in other words: "an" Intelligent Designer.It is my guess that Ausar favours scenario (3) or even, if necessary, (4) above the others? Now the other question is: why does he feel that way?Again there are some possibilities; maybe it is a combination of several of them:(1) simply "gut feeling" and nothing else. Argument from incredulity, it just "seems unlikely". From his mouth, it would sound more like "Isn't it obvious that this is ridiculously against the odds?" (2) he has some very convincing statistical model, or at least he has read about one, which illustrates that "mere chance" combined with NS is not enough to result in the remarkable diversity and functional adaptations we witness in organisms.(in which case, he should provide it, and/or provide the mechanism that is responsible for it!)(3) he argues that there are several quotes by "Darwinists" that indicate they deep down also feel that total random mutation wouldn't cut it, but they refuse to openly admit or discuss it. They desperately defend a paradigm, therebye preventing progress, and he feels like they don't do a good job and deserve to be countered. Since ID fights this kind of neo-Darwinism, he feels like ID holds promise. Even if it may be 95% pseudo-science, we shouldn't reject it so easily altogether, since the remaining 5% could actually contain the key to a better understanding that would counter neo-Darwinism?If Ausar would have a go at these questions, we might see more clearly.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.