Darwinism

[LukeMC]

As for positive evidence, there are two lines of argument that I find convincing: 1) the irreducibly complex systems we see in life that defy a neo-darwininan evolution of random mutation and natural selection by blind natural processes. Things like the bacteria flagellum and the eye to name a few. Yes, I know these are hot topics, but I have yet to see anything other than a fanciful story to explain them. Even if it is a "plausible" story, that says nothing of its truth value or scientific value. Once past the story telling, the actual evidence seems to make the question even harder to explain.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
Roughly half way down the page, this article deals with the bacterial flagellum and has many citations which you're free to pursue also. Although it isn't conclusive, you must bear in mind that just because we aren't absolutely sure yet, this doesn't mean we won't be soon. Science has many, MANY active areas of research. Obviously we don't know everything, otherwise we wouldn't be researching still.

As for the eye: http://www.news-medical.net/news/5980.aspx

Again, not conclusive, but it gives a huge indication. When you consider all options, is it really more likely that some onmipotent being fiddled with our DNA at random intervals while purposefully leading us towards the worldwide hostility and suffering we see to today- just because we can't explain our eyes fully at this present moment?

2) is the information that is found in life, specifically in the DNA of living organisms, not to mention the origin of DNA itself. I have yet to see any explanation for the information that is found in life or how random mutation and natural selection can attribute for a genetic language.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. If I'm just being slow-minded I'm sure somebody else will be able to respond without you having to clarify your point.