I'm Going to Elucidate This

There is no real debate here between you and me.  I could respond with asking "why?" to almost everything you have posted.  My guess is that you are reverberating what you have been taught in the university you attended.  You have a Jesuit education if I remember correctly from someone else's post a while ago.  It seems to me that you understand evolution and science very well.  However, your ability to discern and use your rational processes is underdeveloped compared to your level of knowledge on evolution.  Maybe your bias is getting in the way.  I was serious about the science of irrationality.  I recognize sometimes when I see it.  I am guilty of it also.  I haven't found any good website that can really educate someone on it.  If you had asked me why I wrote the above, my response would have been something like this:

Biological systems are far more complicated than what Darwinists once thought.  DNA carries more information inside of it than the Encyclopedia Britannica.  It has been discovered that junk DNA isn't the junk it was once thought as.  Even Dawkins admitted that he had a lack of an explanation into the origins of DNA.  There are large mathematical improbabilities associated with neo-Darwinism.  For example, What are the chances of different species belonging to totally different phylum, evolving complex eyes during and after the Cambrian era?  Read this link below and read the last two paragraphs.

 http://www.icr.org/article/89/

Really what it boils down to is what you want to believe.  What does your heart let you believe?  People who are resentful or angry in some way are much more likely to embrace evolution.  Many evolutionary scientists seem to see it as something sacred and this would explain why they seem to get offended and somewhat irrational when someone attacks their sacred science.  And they see it as an attack as though neo-Darwinism is some sort of living emotional creature.  They lose their thoughts.  An example of this is the mousetrap.

Some say that if you take some of the parts off a mousetrap, you get a device that can shoot spitballs far better than any other modified device found in a classroom and therefore, this is part of the reason why irreducible complexity is invalid.  But as I have stated before, they don't think because their blind ambitions keep this from happening.  I realized in order to make a spitball device from a mousetrap, you can indeed take some parts away.  However, you need other new parts in order to make it work well.  You need a finger for one thing and a hand that holds it steady while the metal arm is being pulled back and aimed and then, something that aims the device. 

Back to Richard Dawkins comment on DNA.  If you watch the movie "No Intelligence Allowed" with Ben Stein, you will see what Dawkins said at the end of the movie.  Instead of evolutionists accepting this, they attack the movie by posting some website that refutes the movie.  I don't expect them to explain away Dawkin's comment.  It is just another way they use irrationality to weasel out of accepting I.D. in their hearts.