I think that's false.
One side says -- look at this neat evidence! This evidence makes us think that random mutation and natural selection is responsible for speciation!
The other side says -- look at the complexity! The complexity and inter-relatedness of natural systems makes us think that random mutation can't be responsible!
Debate the differences. That's science. Swallowing one half of the story -- that's religion!
I teach this stuff. I have no problem understanding acquired complexity. Perhaps a few science courses (undiluted) would help you.
How do you feel about quantum mechanics? Should physics courses present the “it looks compex to laymen so let’s just say goddidit” argument?
Should each science class give equal time to all alternative theories with a popular or religous following? Most? Some?
BTW, mutations aren’t truly random.
Cogent post and very well stated.
Balch3: If there isn’t there should be, right? Is the evidence that supportive in your opinion? If so, I have not yet seen it. I know they have conjured a few things up in the lab, but I have seen no evidence for any labs being present on a young earth.