"The events that supply variation for natural selection to act on may appear to us “random” but the selection of these variations is hardly random as it is a response to the hard and fast laws of nature."

mutations in the germ cells are believed to be random. The hard and fast laws of nature are anti-evolutionary Rene, another fact you are unwilling to face.

“Perfection would not be expected.” …unless your theorized supernatural agent was omnipotent and fully benevolent. I am glad you see this is not the case and align your viewpoint with reality here, though I can’t even imagine a notion sillier than: the actions of men corrupted the “entire universe”. What amazing power you imagine we have."

I do not agree that God is not omnipotent. He would not be God if he were not so the concept is illogical. He is fully loving and fully holy as well. We have the "amazing power" to choose.

"Actually you have three choices:

(1) The universe in some form or other has always existed in an ordered form, following some set of perceivable laws. Under the right conditions the laws of nature enable the formation of certain molecules that are able to replicate and reproduce. This reproduction sometimes has flaws so that the replicating forms vary. Some of the variable forms are more suited to certain conditions and are more successful at replicating and thus increase in number. These simple processes lead to a vast array of different forms over billions of years of time."

Number one is a false choice. We know that the universe had a beginning and therefore has not always existed. This is another belief of yours which is at odds with science and scripture. Furthermore, no evidence exists in nature of molecules spontaneously organising themselves into complex reproducable structures, much less life. This is another belief of yours which does is at odds with reality and scientific research.

"(2) An unknown, eternal entity of some kind has always existed, possessing consciousness, knowledge and will and for unknown reasons created the material universe with a certain order and set of laws, part of this order and plan was that under the right conditions the laws of nature would enable the formation of certain molecules that are able to replicate and reproduce. This reproduction sometimes has flaws so that the replicating forms vary. Some of the variable forms are more suited to certain conditions and are more successful at replicating and thus increase in number. These simple processes lead to a vast array of different forms over billions of years of time."

If this is true, he didn't leave a scrap of evidence of it since no laws allow for the spontaneous organization of living cells or pre cells. It is possible that this "god" directed this to happen supernaturally of course, but if so, he lied to us in his written word, the bible. This senario does not explain the existance of the imperfection you advance, nor evil. It is illogical and unsupported, so should be dismissed.

"(3) An unknown, eternal entity of some kind has always existed, possessing consciousness, knowledge and will and for unknown reasons created the material universe with a certain order and set of laws. The laws this entity created, however, cannot explain a large part of the world we experience, specifically the entire biosphere. Instead periodic interventions or supernatural events are required to alter matter and form the biologic organisms that we see. As a result of these numerous supernatural events, the biosphere has changed though time and now has the form we see."

we know of course that there must be a God. No other explanation makes any sense. Nothing else can adequately explain our existance, the stuff all around us, the physical laws you mention, the immaterial laws of logic, out of body experiences, the supernatural events recorded in scripture, prophecy and a resurrection. This is a given for rational people Rene, sadly, you are not among them. The laws cannot explain: their own existance, the existance of this universe, the origin of living systems, detailed fulfilled prophecy or the resurrection. The laws do not explain the origin of "information", reason tells us that information always proceeds from an intelligent source. The survival of the fitest does not explain the arrival of the fitest. Yes, the biosphere has changed (evolved) over time. I recognize this obvious fact. But that evolution is not upwards, but downwards. The original created kinds were created fully formed and as mature organisms, followed by sin and degradation, isolation and speciation.

"All of these possibilities can be fit to the known facts."

True, but none of them fit all of the facts, as outlined above. and number one, your choice, is by far the most absurd and illogical.

"I prefer the first model as the insertion of an unknown, eternal entity seems rather ad hoc and unnecessary."

An "unknown" entity (ie God) is absolutely necessary and required. You simply are not prepared to accept this. This is not a problem of science or logic, it appears to be an emotional decision actually. You don't like the notion and particularly despise the biblical God. I understand this and respect your right to believe in (or not) whatever you choose. But you will always be irrational for choosing atheism.

"Model 2 is better than Model 3, as Model 3 needlessly adds supernatural events to explain life when any sensible law maker would simply make this part of the natural law to begin with. The necessity for constant intervention to explain the changes over time are of course also inexplicable."

Of course this is flat out arrogance. You have no idea what a "sensible law maker" (God) would find reasonable or sensible. His understanding is infinite, yours pitifully finite. There is little intervention necessary to explain the "changes over time". This variability was placed into the genome to begin with (option 4). None of the early creationists believed that God was constantly meddling with his Creation. Miracles are considered to be rare. The only difference is they do not preclude their possibility, while you must. This makes them open to all possibilities when examining the world around them, not just natural explanations.

"Additionally, the only reason for the ad hoc insertion of an unknown eternal entity is to try to offer an explanation as to how the order we see came about. It fails to do this"

it is not a "filling of a gaps" as you assert. It is simply the forces of reason and logic leading rational man to a logical reasonable conclusion. We are forced to this conclusion, not for lack of evidence, but due to the evidence we have at hand. Our creations screams for a creator Rene, you have turned a deaf ear to what most find patently obvious.

"as it does not actually answer this question, but merely pushes it back one step--->"

this argument of yours holds no water either. It is illogical to ask "who created god" just as it is illogical to ask "to whom is the bachelor married". In your mind, you feel this is some kind of loophole in theistic argumentation. It is not. As I have pointed out to you numerous times before on many different forums, a logical argument for the biblical God is sound and proven. It is unnassailable.

"now it must be asked how did the order, form and plan of the entity came about? Postulating the eternal entity does not answer the question. With or without the entity we must assume that whatever has always existed has some kind of order and form; that this order has always existed or naturally arose within it."

Science confirms the biblical truth that there was a beginning. There is no way to scientifically examine the Creator and no need to. The problem for the atheist is that he/she feels science is the "end all". It is not. There is much of reality which science cannot touch. Even science itself assumes Christiainity as an axiom. If no God exists, then there is no way to know if our discussion is real or imagined.

"However, Dan, you do not appear to even have a possible model, rather you seem to ascribe to a variation of model 3, rooted in antiquity, where our knowledge of the history of the biosphere was non-existent."

of course this statement is loaded with prejudice. Assuming that no God exists and that cultures have evolved from cave dwelling subhumans to civilized intelligent cultures leads you to the conclusion that the bible is false and cannot be trusted!! And you fail to understand that these assumptions are your starting points!

Our knowledge of history of the biosphere would be much better the closer you get to the creation. Adam likely wrote parts of genesis as did others of his close descendants. Moses simply conpiled these records and added his personal experiences. Adam walked with God in the Garden and while he was not an eyewitness of the creation, he had face to face personal knowlege of the Creator.

"If you care at all about the truth, I recommend you discard this impossible model and settle on Model 2 or Model 3. Of course, model 1 is better yet, but I feel you need the delusion of an unknown eternal entity watching over you, so I don't expect you to be able to adopt this one."

I do care about the truth Rene. And that truth leads me to option 4. I have found the bible to be very consistant with reality on many levels. This ancient text is consistant with truths not generally known until centuries later, including the notiion that the universe had a beginning, which overthrew the pagan notion (aristotle) of an eternal universe, the law of biogenesis, later proven by creation scientists Virchow, Paseur (et el), the notion of one blood (disbelieved by Darwin and other evolutionists but confirmed by science in the genome project) and so many others. This ancient book, which you despise, is much smarter than you are Rene. It has withstood the test of time, the confirmation of archeology and the scrutiny of many learned people. I am not highly educated, nor do I claim to be of high intelligence, but when I compare the bible with all other starting points (axioms), my confidence only increases.