The scientist that threw out natural selection, replaced it with evolution as an "informed and reasoned" process. So that's kind of looking like intelligent design theory.
I agree, it looks that way.
Anyway, as you know creation is a free act
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean that God was free to create or not create, as he saw fit?
since some professor found a way how to handle freedom mathematically, hyperincursive math, since then natural selection is out, and creation is in.
Woah there! The views of, as you put it, "some professor" do not a scientific consensus make. Science doesn't work that way. This new paradigm you are so impressed with needs to make predictions that can be studied by other scientists and have those predictions verified before it can become the new consensus. It also needs to do a better job of this than the current theory of natural selection. Further, for natural selection to be "out", you would have to falsify it in some way. Unless I missed it, you have not done this.
Here is how this works, decisions are made in the universe at large (proven), and through these decisions things come to be.
What? I'm sorry, but that sounds insane. The universe is how it is, no matter what decisions humanity makes or does not make. What on Earth are you saying?
That is the fundamental mindset of the new scientist. Which happens to be the mindset of most believers in God, who'se view of the universe as it turns out was fundamentally more accurate then that of most all 20th century scientists.
New science eh? Once again, we see creationists trying to redefine what science itself is, to its detriment as usual. There is no "new" science, only the same scientific method that has stood us in good stead for years. Only creationists (and perhaps homoeopaths) want to change it.
As for the accuracy of creationism, you have ample chance to demonstrate that. Feel free to give examples.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2
