To get a sense of the probabilities involved read “Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.”
Here is an excerpt:

“The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged in over 1 x 10^600 different ways (that’s the number ONE followed by 600 zeros)! This number is vastly larger than the total number of atomic particles that could be packed into the known universe. If we had a computer that could rearrange the 500 amino acids of a particular protein at the rate of a billion combinations a second, we would stand essentially no chance of hitting the correct combination during the 14 billion years evolutionists claim for the age of the universe. Even if our high-speed computer were reduced to the size of an electron and we had enough of them to fill a room measuring 10 billion light years square (about 1 x 10^150 computers!), they would still be exceedingly unlikely to hit the right combination. Such a “room” full of computers could only rearrange about 1 x 10^180 combinations in 300 billion years. In fact, even if all the proteins that ever existed on earth were all different, our “room” full of computers would be exceedingly unlikely to chance upon the combination of any one of them in a mere 300 billion years!”

BTW, facepalm, science does validate the Intelligent Design theory, as much as it can, being “inside the box”. If you would do some “real” research you will discover the absolute impossibility of the earth’s biodiversity - and, indeed, life itself - having it’s origin through evolution alone. There had to be design and energy added to the equation. What you are spewing here is the kind of propaganda we are fighting. I fear you will soon be in the embarrassing position of finding yourself discredited, kind of like Al Gore…

The criticism is rejected by the scientific community, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as “microevolution” and denying that “macroevolution” takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth’s biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the “fact of evolution”.

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using “strategically elastic” definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic. The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is “any change at the species level or above” (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is “any change below the level of species.” Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as “just microevolution”.

For more information do some real research rather than just going to a creationist propaganda website.