Do you think the science behind the suggestion that random mutation and natural selection are responsible for biodiversity is wrong in some specific way, or does it just not seem appealing/convincing to you (in a non-scientifically rigorous way)?

More specifically, if I can take the liberty of bifurcating the answer space, do you think that a.) you aren't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that random mutation and natural selection must be responsible for biodiversity (and thus, as in a court of law, you have to vote "not guilty"); or b.) you specifically think/feel/know that it is wrong?

This idea of non-rational and rational just seem like fluff words to me. I don't see what bearing they can possibly have on the way things work, or the way things happened.

For one thing, it seems arbitrary to believe what you believe. Kind of like, "I do not believe that apples, butter, and flour can create pie." Why not? (Yes, I picked an analogy that favors my view. Pie is delicious!).

But for another, non-rational and rational are philosophy, as far as I can tell, and since when has the inner workings the universe or it's ancient history confined itself to what pleases us philosophically?

If you want to judge the merit of a scientific idea, as far as I'm concerned you've got to provide counter-examples, or refinements which generate more accurate predictions, etc. Namely, math stuff, I would think. That isn't to say you don't have some math stuff in mind with regards to biodiversity... I just don't think what you've actually written is here nor there on the matter of whether or not natural selection and random mutation are sufficient, reasonable, and/or the best hypothesis we have at the moment for the diversity of life.

Airshiposockhead

They are financially linked to a noah's ark theme park in Hong Kong.