Ok so I have pretty much no idea what the hell you're talking about in the rest of this post,
I`m sorry I was busy petting my cat that I disregarded this notion and went ahead explaining other matter. So you want to get into more scientific approach? oh ok, I hope you are qualified enough if so.
As I was saying earlier, some researchers, actually many researchers.. ok most of them, unfortunately, seem to be driven by the misguided wish to defend ideologies that have nothing to do with science. A fact, in which it is extremely critical of today's neo-Darwinism... while the fact of evolution is beyond question my friend, however there are great gaps in our knowledge of the way it operates, and there is no valid explanation of the factors determining it, take the random mutations that takes place in the genes which control heredity are insufficient to play a determinant role in evolution itself, inn the case of man, a fact such as the development of the brain since the Astralopithecus (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus), over a period covering at the very most 80,000 generations, which is too short on the major scaleof evolution, is inconceivable in neo-Darwinian terms. One of the great mysteries of human evolution is the (almost total) loss of man's innate behaviour, a feature that has remained present and active in apes. Man's evolution cannot be compared point for point with that of the rest of the animal kingdom unlike what many tend to believe.
Or do you want me to explain my problem with the rule of chance? Ok, I`ll tell you, the possibility of spontaneously forming steel particles from iron ore and coal at a veryhigh temperature could have led to the construction of the Eiffel Tower through a series of happy coincidences that assembled the materials in proper order. Well, that`s the evolution for you. The reason of which the process has taken billion of years overweights the reason which should make a child rules out the possisbility of this to happen fascinates me, I mean if someone really believe in this bullcrap, so why would that particular someone makes fun of fairy tales and santa clause based stories? well bearing in mind, Even then, this comparison Ive just mentioned is extemely weak, for the actual structural complexity of an elementary living organism is much much more complex than the structure of the Eiffel Tower per-se.