Evolution and chance

People are confused by the theory of evolution. They don't realize that the theory depends entirely upon the concept of chance. When apologists say, 'evolution produced x' they're really just saying that it happened by accident, that it's the 'product' of blind chance. Molecules to man evolution (M2M) needs a source of original information, and though people try to hide it, all they've got to offer as this source is chance. The trouble is that chance (if it's even possible in a law governed universe) isn't creative or directed. It's my view that chance is an abstraction that can produce nothing original and creative. Let's take a look at a recent example of how this plays out.

Quotes and comments;

A. Insect glue;
'To Russell Stewart (U of Utah) it can only mean one thing: “They came to this underwater adhesion solution completely independently,” he said. The press release added, “showing that it repeatedly evolved because of its value in helping the creatures live and thrive, Stewart says.” [1.]

- What Stewart is really saying is that these underwater adhesives just happened by chance; not only once but many times. When you cut through the obfuscating language that's what he's saying. When he reduce this to the level of physics he's making the claim that elegant solutions to 'problems' happen 'because' (via) of the random motion of particles. The word evolve (evolution) is used to confuse people; when you look at what he's saying it simply means that all these amazing creations just happen by accident, by the chance motion of atoms swirling in the void. He talks of cause, but all he has to offer us is chance. A major refutation of this idea is that there would seem to be no possibility of chance in merely material universe. (Contra the ancient Greeks, atoms do not swerve.)

Apologists for evolution like to speak of the 'solutions' they find in nature, but they don't like to talk about where those solutions came from. i.e. they like to talk about the wonders of natural selection, and how it chooses one 'solution' over another, but they don't like to tell us how those solutions came into being. When you look at the subject closely you realize that evolution is just a fancy word that covers up a shabby and poor concept called chance.

Summary;
The irony here is that we're talking about products our best scientists, in our best labs, can't duplicate... but yet our apologists for evolution tell us that these 'solutions' just happened by the accidental (blind, undirected) motions and collisions of atoms. How is it that people can believe such a far fetched notion?

Notes;
1. Natural Wonders Can Be Useful Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2010
- The above 'article' is is an interesting collection of new discoveries in biomimetics.
2. Insect glue: The Caddis fly is well known to fishermen. They are accustomed to hunting for the tube-shaped larva shelters, made of grains of sand and rock. The larva glues those grains together with silk made of a wet adhesive that is attracting the attention of inventors.
3. I can't resist commenting on an article mentioned in the same C/E post.
Sea Squirt;
'The article said, for whatever it means, “as long ago as Darwin, it has been recognized that sea squirts may be our closest invertebrate relatives; in their immature, tadpole form, they resemble proper vertebrates, and they share about 80% of their genes with us.”
- This 'relationship' number is beside the point; it's about as meaningful as saying computers and cars share about 99 percent of the same materials.
This is the the kind of nonsense you get when you look at things in reductionistic terms.