In a word—no! The more sophisticated naturalists readily admit that the chance-alone hypothesis is at best far-fetched. Thus, they posit that natural selection* or some other unintelligent nonrandom mechanism is involved in the process. This, however, hardly limits the liabilities of the evolutionary hypothesis.
First, it should be noted that there is no evidence for the suggestion that information in the genetic code can be increased through natural selection. Nor are there any known physical laws that can be invoked to account for the information-rich content of genetic material.
Furthermore, it is misleading to suggest that an accumulation of beneficial changes will produce an improved overall design. In other words, a bunch of little changes will not necessarily add up to a glorified final product.
Finally, those capable of scaling the evolutionary language barrier* immediately realize what’s going on. Evolutionists speak of “natural selection” all the while pouring the meaning of intelligent design* into the words.
For further study, see Nancy R. Pearcey, “DNA: The Message in the Message,” First Things (June/July 1996): 13–14, online at http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/002-dna-the-message-in-the-message-44 (accessed April 4, 2011).