After reading this description of DNA it makes me wonder if this confirms theistic evolution as the most intelligent position on evolution at this point.

No wonder Francis Collins is a believer in it.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm

Sequenced nothing random about it.

lol

Article quote:

"We now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system."

Since when have systems been random?

Since DNA, baby!

DNA double helix video:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dna-d...elix-video.htm

Quote: Its here we see the most compelling evidence for design on the Earth.

Autocratic,

Evolution is most definitely random.

Just like poker is a system of chips, 52 cards, and rules of action. Nothing random about the system.

Obviously there are some random elements, but I'd consider this wrong.

Believing that God or someone created DNA is not the same as believing in theistic evolution. Its still just deism.

The question was rhetorical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEH7jyt1eoo

How so?

Why do you feel you are qualified to make this assertion? Especially since of those who are both expert in this field and are more intelligent than Francis Collins, the vast majority disagree with him.

Unless I have my defintions wrong, theistic evolution assumes God intervenes in the mutations. As opposed to creating DNA and then just watching the show.

Oh I hadn't even thought of specific mutations.

Wiki has it as a spectrum:

Terminology
The term was used by National Center for Science Education executive director Eugenie Scott to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting continued intervention. Others see intervention at critical intervals in history in a way consistent with scientific explanations of speciation, but with similarities to the ideas of Progressive Creationism that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially.[

Its very amorphous which makes sense to me because Genesis has a lot of Gaps and science can only fill the gaps in over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I think you're using a bad definition of random then.

I can predict with near certainty that a craps player will lose if they play for a very long time. It's still a random event.