Why complex form requires an Intelligent Designer

KBC1963 writes:Evolution is now checkmated by a logical and definable
reason, and we can infer directly the necessity of an
Intelligent Designer.

KBC1963 writes:Since the foundation of evolution is "random" mutations that are subsequently selected based on fitness for an environment then it would eliminate a design inference because the randomness of mutation could never be controllled to cause a contiguous existence of functional formations.

interview of Francis Collins writes:QUESTION: As a scientist, have you ever found that your faith has conflicted with your scientific work?
DR. COLLINS: I actually do not believe that there are any collisions between what I believe as a Christian, and what I know and have learned about as a scientist. I think there's a broad perception that that's the case, and that’s what scares many scientists away from a serious consideration of faith. But, unless one chooses to make an absolutely literal interpretation of the book of Genesis and the story of creation -- which I believe is not a choice that people made even before science came along in the last century to cast some doubt upon the timing of the creation events -- other than that I am not aware of any reasons why one cannot be a completely dedicated person of faith who believes that God inspired the writings in the Bible, and also be a rigorous, intellectually completely honest scientist, who does not accept things about the natural world until they're proven.
QUESTION: As someone who does combine religious faith and scientific reason in your life, why do you think that so many people do have a problem with that?
DR. COLLINS: I believe that people mix up the natural and the spiritual. Science's domain is the natural. If you want to understand the natural world and be sure you're not misleading yourself, science is the way to do it. You accumulate data, you make hypotheses, you draw conclusions, you expose them to other people's critical views, and you eventually decide whether it's right.
The spiritual world is not where science operates. The spiritual world is another part of human existence. I would argue a very critical one, and just as you would not expect necessarily theology to always get it right when it comes to arguments about the structure of molecules, you should expect science to get it right when it comes to the spiritual aspects of human existence.
QUESTION: Do you feel it is important for religious people to know about science and keep up with new developments?
DR. COLLINS: I think it's critical that we have a meaningful dialogue between people of faith and people involved in science. And ideally it would be nice if some of those were the same people. And, as I've said, I see no reason why that can't be the case. In fact, as a scientist, the religious aspects of my life, I believe, add additional meaning to what I do in science.
QUESTION: Could you elaborate?
DR. COLLINS: Well, as a geneticist, I'm in the situation, particularly with this revolution that's going on in genetics, of observing new things all the time. Running the genome project, hardly a week goes by where some gene isn't discovered that plays a critical role in understanding a disease that had been completely obscure until now. That is a remarkable experience, particularly if you have the chance to be part of the actual moment of discovery, which I have had on a few occasions. For me, as a person of faith, that moment of discovery has an additional dimension. It's appreciating something, realizing something, knowing something that up until then no human had known - but God knew it. And there is an intricacy and an elegance in the nature of biology, particularly when it comes to the information carrying capacity of DNA, which is rather awesome. And so, in a way, perhaps, those moments of discovery also become moments of worship, moments of appreciation, of the incredible intricacies and beauty of biology, of the world, of life. And, therefore, an appreciation of God as the creator.

KBC1963 writes:Unless you can show mechanically how "random mutation" is not random when it occurs then I would say it is random.
If you feel that natural selection can steer mutations as to how and where they occur I would be quite interested to hear how this is done.
To this agnostic I require empirical evidence before I believe in anything. If you feel evolution can prove mechanistically how it can create form then I am all ears.