I have long believed that “being alive” is the fundamental predicate to possessing even rudimentary intrinsic moral value.
Our responses to the Muller two-step have been around for a long time; it would be nice if ID critics would recognize and perhaps answer them.
The error is not completely different from imagining that natural selection really can do what creative intelligence — foresight! — can do.
That Darwinism seems even superficially plausible depends completely on the ability of living things to reproduce themselves without significant degradation.
It’s fine to search through random results for an outcome you’re aiming for. Just don’t call it Darwinian evolution.