"And it's not "random", it dosen't work like that. On every specie, future generations may have different atributes, and if those atributes are better for survival, those "different" species are most likely to survive and perpetuate their own species. It's logical to me."
You have to be careful about using the word "random", because interactions between said organism and the environment can lead to widely varying effects. I'm reminded of the white moths in England that blended in well with the local white trees. There were far fewer brown moths, because they stood out more, and were easily caught and eaten.
After decades of heavy industrialization, the pollution had turned the trees brown, and thus the white moths were now in short supply, and the brown moths could rest easy. The pollution aspect was certainly not something nature had in mind, so a "random" change, either in the environment or the organism (i.e. mutation), can occur. The sheer number of physiological errors that can occur when something goes wrong (in utero, etc.) prevents the ID from not having random occurences. They can be logically followed and deduced after the fact, but are not always predictable prior.
"3- Does the complex almost mathematical code in DNA have a natural (random, blind) order?"
Sounds like someone's not heard of the "Golden Ratio" or "Fibonacci Numbers".
"The only "proof" I've ever seen was a poster on the wall in my grade-school science classroom of a long line of apes starting at the beginning of time, each one standing more erect than the other. Perhaps when they find this year's missing link?"
With all due respect, the lack of proof you've seen lies more in your lack of experience with it, rather than any perceived lack of said proof. This line of reasoning is like closing your eyes at an intersection, so you could tell the traffic cop that you didn't see the red light. Now, this is not to say that the proof is 100% definitive, but there is plenty to see, should you so choose to study it.
"For instance, the case in Georgia where the school board wanted to put stickers on the text books stating that evolution is a theory, and that many people consider it to be flawed."
Which is ironic, because as much as I am an evolutionist, I have no problem with this statement at all. It is still a theory, regardless of how well supported it is. I don't think there's a God pulling the strings, but there's still a whole universe of knowledge that we don't have access to. Who knows - Douglas Adams could be right.
"Have you guys heard the news that some scientists are questioning whether the spead of light is even a constant? These are secular scientist and they have been studying this and researching it and they think that Einstien was wrong about the speed of light being a constant."
Well, I don't know about light going faster, but light can be slowed down.
"Same with evolution. He likes to think that evolution still happened over the course of the number of years that scientists believe it to have happened but that the Bible refers to that entire process as a "day."
I liked it. Seemed to work for me."
What did he say about the process of dinosaurs?