Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

Mutations, in a chemical sense, aren't random.
Given chemical knowledge of the nucleus of the spermatoza and the nucleus of the egg cell and a computer of significant computational power you could determine whether or not there will be a deviation from the parental genes.When it is said that mutation is random, it means it has no purpose or goal.When you say "We still don't know, for example, to what degree mutations are random", do you mean we don't know their frequency in a temporal or spatial sense or we don't know how constrained or "under control" they are? To be frank, no.
People don't get into science to discredit Christianity or laugh at theists, they get into because they find it interesting.
What lies at the core of the reasoning behind evolution is the desire to understand the natural world, which neither breeds nor requires militant atheism.

They occur randomly in the sense that they are undirected.
There is of course a cause, a chemical one, but that has no bearing on the randomness in the context of biology.

They are undirected by the animal, that is all that matters to the scientific theory. It has no bearing because as far as the animal is concerned it is random, that is all that matters.
The animal does not control the mutations, there are simply a group of mutations that occur because of chemical process and the best suited one to that particular environment will have the greatest chance of being selected.
This is why it doesn't matter, because all that matters is that there is a range of mutations which came about without knowledge of the environment.
In other words the animal didn't recognize which would be best suited and select it.

You asked me why it has no bearing and I told you. I wasn't making any statement about the above, I was explaining the use of the term random. I know this is directed at somebody else and since I come from Ireland perhaps I don't get the context, but what does a "typical evo arguement" mean?
Are you seriously putting people who consider evolution valid into a group with its own sterotypes?
Its too broad a group of people and I've never met anybody for whom their opinion that evolution is valid was a character trait. How would the mental state of an animal effect its genes, by what mechanism would it occur?
How could the animal being happy, mad, sad, e.t.c. effect the chemical bonding processes when the zygote forms?
There is no evidence for it at the moment, in fact there is evidence to the contrary.
Bottom line is we know that it is either a non-existent or negligible effect in most animals.

OFF TOPIC -
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGE What exactly do you mean by this?
Do you mean random in the sense of being undirected?
Do you mean random spatially or temporally?When the mutations are referred to as random it refers to their context in a biological setting.
Randomness doesn't literally mean something which is removed from completely from causality.
It is simply a statement of the lack of knowledge on behalf of something or the lack of continuity of information between two entities.
In this sense mutations are random to natural selection, it doesn't watch and "mollycoddle" a specific mutation, instead from its perspective it is presented with a smorgasbord of random mutations. OFF TOPIC -
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MESSAGEThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-16-2005 07:39 PM