Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Jovanian Teapot]

Since by 'fitness paradigm' you seem to mean 'natural selection to improve adaptation to the reproductive environment' which is pretty much what evolution is, I presume that you would consider your speculation falsified (not that speculation needs to be falsified, it needs to be supported in the first place before it rises to the level that anyone should be bothered to try to falsify it) if the reproductive environment isn't designed, for example, if the reproductive environment is random.

Is that a fair statement? If so, do you want to change anything about your speculation at this point?

If you could generate the complexity we observe and attribute to natural selection with a completely random fitness paradigm, I would consider my speculation falsified.

Essentially what you ask that i (or others) do is provide a grounds for natural selection without selection mechanisms?
What kind of semantic retardation is this?
As an aside, I have yet to see where your argument has any legs to stand on. Have you provided an example of evolution with a specific target in mind? Not at all, as I see it.
It is surprising to read of a theist who actually reads books on evolution; it is not surprising at all to see that same theist reading only to feed his(or her) confirmation bias.
You seem to have a signature ability to take quotations out of context in order to use them as pawns in your quest to dignify your delusional worldview.
To say that evolution in no way contradicts any religious tenets is false; it seems to me that evolution threw the book of genesis into the fucking grinder.
If you would venture to say that evolution does not prove the non-existence of god;high fucking five kiddo. No reasonable argument could ever prove this negative.
I must say that although you have indeed come to the right forum if you would like your ideas, however radical, to be taken seriously, you have been severely misled if you think that any one person posting here is going to allow you to make claims without providing legitimate evidence to support those claims.

You should probably read more on evolution, so that you have a stronger understanding of it.

I highly encourage you to consider reading these books (as I have read them myself)

What evolution is, by Ernst Mayr

The Tangled Bank: an introduction to Evolution by Carl Zimmer.

Lastly, though it does violence to your worldview, I reccomend
Why Darwin Matters: The case against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer.

Best of luck in defending your claims with legitimate evidence,