You are making a lot of accusations here. "discredit anyone who questions random mutation and natural selection"... Does that mean that if someone's ideas are being "discredited" by science that this is an attempt to suppress ideas?
Bertvan: Not being a Christian, I haven't talked to many "young earth
creationists". I admire your independence of thought, and am glad of such
diversity of belief among Christians. My problem is not necessarily with
evolution, but with the specific mechanism of "random mutation and natural
selection" as an explanation of macro evolution. Because of the irrational
passion with which many biologists defend the theory, I have become skeptical
of biologists.
Fine, but that is no disproof of the theory.
Bertvan: Do you believe the laws of nature were designed--or came into existence by
accident? If you believe the laws of nature were designed by God, do you
believe he did so for any purpose? Do you believe the universe is the
result of accidental processes? The result of random, chance events? If
everything is the result of chance, what part, if any, could God have played?
Your assumption that "everything is the result of chance" is of course erroneous. So there remains a lot of room for God to play around in after all. You have created a false existance of purely random acts in this universe. Perhaps it would help to first define randomness/accidental.
Bertvan: I don't know enough about computers to understand most of your theories, but
I do realize computer do not pop into existence by chance: they are designed
by intelligent humans.
And ? You are making another common (erroneous) assumption here that since computers are designed that therefor everything computers are used for prove design.
Bertvan: Do you have any objection to the concept of design?
Most advocates of "random mutation and natural selection" believe such
things as altruism, love and emotions are also the result of "random mutation
and natural selection". Is that part of your belief? I admit that
evolution is probably the result of mutations, but why do you insist they
must be random?
They might not be random, it is not that important to the theory of evolution that these are random.
What is important is that there is a non-random component.
Bertvan: And if mutations aren't random, but occur according to some
rational plan or design, natural selection wouldn't necessarily be important
to the process--except to eliminate mistakes, would it?
Now you are making several unwarranted presumptions. That non-random means that there is a plan or design that guides them. Even more that if natural selection is less important that the theory of evolution has therefor failed.
Bertvan: Natural selection would not be a creative force in that case, but merely a force for stasis,
wouldn't it?
Not necessarily, that depends on the circumstances. But natural selection is never "creative" merely preserving. That however does not mean that it is necessarily a force for stasis.
Bertvan: As a Christian, you must surely believe free will plays a part in the evolution of human thought and culture. Do you eliminate will as playing any part in biological evolution? Isn't symbiosis a collection of individual events involving will?
Huh? And the relevance of this is what?
Bertvan: Do you rule out any form of Lamarckism--mutations influenced by use? Do you think biologists' insistence on randomness might have kept anyone from even investigating an environmental component of mutation?
Perhaps, of course anything is possible, the question is: Is it relevant? You are making some swiping comments which lack much supporting evidence. If you believe that much is being ignored, rather than accuse should you not just "do the work"? The irony to me is that your attitude does not differ too much from your strawman of biologists.