Ok, lets remove the supreme being bit from the argument temporarily.

Do you agree that evolution is capable of being directed? (The manipulations should have a definite goal in mind).

Exhibit A: Geneticists and genetic engineering, monsanto, etc.

Exhibit B: Sexual reproduction, breeding, etc.

Do you agree there are mechanisms of evolution that is very suspicious?

Exhibit A: cosmic ray "point" mutations

Exhibit B: evolution as noted in the archeological record is not a continuous bit-by-bit change, as darwinists would say. Evolution generally occurs in big leaps and bounds all at once.

Exhibit C: cross over points are controlled by whom? When two different strands of Dna meet, and they decide to cross over, who determines the points and places, when and where code crosses over?

Exhibit D: bacteria has the ability to discover novelty, and isolate the code for it, and wrap it up, and transmit that to other bacteria. (for example, if tuberculosis discovers a genetic immunity to a drug, it will wrap it up and transmit it to other bacteria, in a sense, invoking the process of evolution from within, to without).

Exhibit E: Recent discoveries show that higher order organisms, plants, animals, humans, are capable of cross-individual genetic manipulation. (wow, what a shocker?) This is akin to somebody being born with immunity to AIDS, then passing that immunity onto other people by breathing on them. But yet, this does not happen all the time, or awful things would occur... yet, who, or what decides when an evolutionary change should be evoked across the whole species?

So interestingly enough, dna has the capability to 1) modify its own code 2) store a history of what its been doing for the past millions of years 3) can wake up, transmit messages to other members of its species, and other species to invoke subtle and non-subtle changes 4) is susceptible to apparantly "random" changes and can gather novelty via other methods such as sexual reproduction. Not all of the above is really understood.

I remember when I was in college, I studied genetic "algorithms" via computer simulations. It is possible for example, to put random nonsense code into a computer, and after a number of generations, have it duplicate complex algorithms such as quicksort, path finders, orbital mechanics type algorithms, fluid dynamics algorithms, etc. All on its own, without human intervention at all. It's as if some kind of "creation" is occuring sprouting literally out of nowhere.

Anyway, so let's roll back the concept of God back into this. Note: I am not talking about creationism, the evolutionary record or the judeochristian text. If there is anything at all we discovered from science, it's that the Universe as we know it is very mathematically consistent, and is not a universe of magic and fantasy. That said, God, if such a thing exists, is a mathematically consistent being. As such, that opens up a great many avenues of manipulation and direction (e.g. what is "randomness" and if God is in control of "randomness" to what extent does that lend itself towards direction of evolution?).

Anyway, I'm not saying God created the earth 6000 years ago. However, at the same time, there is neither the thisness or thatness that you seem to imply.

My premise is that since all that we know and experience and create is done through a kind of "genetic lens" -- so ubiquitously that if people were computers on a network, it's the code that writes the code for everything -- that you *have* to point your eye at this code. We currently don't actually know if God is involved, or not. And I know you're not saying that evolutionary direction/manipulation is not happening. But to say it's self-defeating to theorize a control entity is just as well as pointing to a text that says the world was created 6000 years ago and accepting it as such. Maybe it is or isn't? Who knows.

Calvin