Evolutionary theory does not try to explain the universe nor does the evolutionary theory try to explain the existence of species through random acts of chance.
Creationists (correct me if I am wrong) believe in the free will of man. How is it such a stretch to believe that evolution was left to the 'free will' of chemistry? God may have provided the chemistry and let evolution take its course much as Creationists say we are born and our lives are let to take their course.
For discussion's sake, your last sentence may indeed by accurate (who knows?). I'm having trouble understanding where you stand on this issue, but that theory is not far off from my own thinking.
But you seem to contradict yourself earlier by saying (and I paraphrase) 1) evolutionary theory doesn't infer random acts of chance with respect to the existence of species, and 2). evolution may follow the "free will" of chemistry. So which is it?
OK… But some ‘use’ TOE to explain everything and since TOE excludes ID in any form or fashion, what is left but ‘random acts of chance’?
Given such sentiments, it’s not surprising that discipline after discipline is now being “Darwinized.” Cosmology has its self-reproducing black holes governed by cosmological natural selection (see Lee Smolin’sThe Life of the Cosmos). Ethics and psychology have now become evolutionary ethics and evolutionary psychology (see Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal and Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works). Even the professional schools are being overtaken, so that we now have books with titles like Evolutionary Medicine (medicine), Managing the Human Animal (business), Economics as an Evolutionary Science (economics), and Evolutionary Jurisprudence (law). And let’s not forget religious studies, in which God genes (i.e., genes that cause us to believe in God irrespective of whether God exists) and the Darwinian roots of religious belief have become a growth industry (see, for instance, Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought).Such enthusiasm for Darwinism might be endearing except that its proponents are deadly earnest. For instance, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea Daniel Dennett views religious believers who dissuade their children from believing Darwinian evolution as such a threat to the social order that they need to be caged in zoos or quarantined (both metaphors are his). Because of the myth of invincibility that now surrounds it, Darwinism has become monopolistic and imperialistic. Though often associated with “liberalism,” Darwinism as practiced today knows nothing of the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill. “Darwinian liberalism” tolerates no dissent and regards all criticism of Darwinism’s fundamental tenets as false and reprehensible.
- William A. Dembski