"Whether randomness is truly random, as explained by the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle, or whether it is ultimately deterministic and therefore only pseudo-random or chaotic, is irrelevant."
It may be irrelevant to you, but not to others.
Say that the majority of the world was atheistic, rather than theistic, pinning all their beliefs on atheism, supported by principles of Darwinism and non design.
Then say the very foundation of their belief system was shaken by a discovery of an intelligent pattern in the so called "random" mutations.
The central issue is not determinism versus randomness, it is random ignorant change versus intelligent design. Ultimate causation is not the same as determinism.
The consequences for mankind of knowing whether the biological process are by design or random ignorant chance would hardly be "irrelevant." While the revelation of the truth of by random or by design would not have any impact on the process of change itself, the impact on the human race would be enormous, which is why the issue has such political implications, which is why both sides of the issue are implementing political agendas to advance their belief systems. It becomes the politics of religion and the politics of atheism, and what is a more conflicted situation than mixing politics with belief systems based on personal beliefs.
See, the differences between an examination of gravity and theories that revolve around it mostly stay within their own limited sphere, but talk of origin of man, has a much broader, more important scope.
I would be delighted if the biologists spoke only of the processes that they actually know...but the introduction of some mysterious, unpredictable, impossible to calculate, impossible to prove the causation, impossible to disprove, concept as "random mutations" really goes beyond science, into the realm of pure myth. Those who embrace this belief, with no method to test the belief to be true or false, really are no different than theists who embrace their own beliefs with equal fervor. The scientist have taken a lack of evidence as the foundation for fact, which is of course, absurd. It is upside down. Starting with ignorance of fact to construct a such a broad based theory is akin to the sand castles by the sea...
Scientists have duped the general public and sheeple into accepting something as fact, which actually is a guess founded on ignorance...
Oh and your "proof" of God would destroy will destroy God the Almighty is so extremely silly.
Proof of nuclear weapons did nothing to diminish their all mightiness here on earth...
Quote from kjkent1:
Whether randomness is truly random, as explained by the Copenhagen interpretation of the uncertainty principle, or whether it is ultimately deterministic and therefore only pseudo-random or chaotic, is irrelevant.
A deterministic universe does not prove that it was intelligently designed. It merely makes the future theoretically predictable to a certainty.
There is nothing about determinism that leads inescapably to a designer.
Thus, the dichotomy of randomness vs. determinism is false. The Uncertainty principle, whether or not an accurate scientific description of true randomness, does not open the door to the existence of a creator.
If there is a creator, then he is beyond scientific investigation. ID is an attempt to scientifically discern the existence of that which cannot be scientifically discerned, because any verifiable/falsifiable proof a limitless creator will by definition, limit that creator to the proof of his existence.
In essence, proof of Intelligent Design will destroy God as almighty.
This makes the entire proposition of describing ID as a scientific discipline subject to naturalistic proof, absurd.
So, while you are entitled to your belief in a divine creator, and while you may ultimately be correct in that belief, the fact that you personally seek to prove your belief via resort to an absurdity, should cause you some concern.
The proof you seek risks the destruction of your own belief system.
