Creation vs Darwinism

Evolution and Its Discontents by Dmitry Chernikov points out some great questions for those who believe in Darwinism. Howeover, I think Creation perspective (I don't care for ID or "Intelligent Design" that people like to use) should keep the focus on the fundamental:

1. Language: language has to be taught. No two ways about it. A human cannot possibly be a language user without another language user around (too bad they require paid subscription to read the article). And language trancends reality -- what comes out of my mouth is audible noise while what comes out of a printer is an ink pattern, not language. And yet, one single (English) language can be transmitted in many ways, be it voice or printed or sign language or braille or morse code or even physical, kinesthetic touch aka Helen Keller method.
   

   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

   What evolution of language origin has to explain is at what point did non-language sounds transform into language sounds? And how did this transformation be recognized as something worth preserving and then be preserved and passed on to the others?
   
   
2. Life: only life can beget life. Non-life cannot start life. Any attempts by scientist to start life from non-life only proves that it takes intelligence to start life. Nor can one point to something and say, yes this is life force (life cannot be "measured" by any tool). Or to put it another way, if you combine all the molecules that makes up a virus (for example), just mixing the ingrediant together (even with sophisticated atomic surgery), will not produce life.
   

   the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 1:5
   

   
   What's amazing about life is that it is not anything like a random parts evolving into a watch, instead it is like random parts coming together to make a factory which can make another factory. Not a factory which creates random junk but a near perfect copy of itself (another factory maker).
   
   
3. Time can only exist because of language. "Time" does not exist in nature. Animals do not think about past and future -- they live in the moment, the "now". Language allow us to go back in time (by remembering the past or what could have happened) or forward in time (what one anticipates or plan to do). This is hard to comprehend since we are immersed in it and cannot think without it. And, yes, things like relativity ties the 3 dimensional world (3D) with time but in pure objectivity, time cannot be measured like 3d objects (using a ruler or a measuring cup). (But then relativity is a human theory, no matter how "accurate".) Time is defined by one thing in relationship with something else. Like earth's rotation around the sun. (Or the universe's relationship to God.)
   

   God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day. Genesis 1:5
   

It takes intelligence to detect language, life and even evolution itself. Animals can detect food vs non-food or threat vs benign. But cannot detect if "evolution" has taken place or not.

One question of my own for Darwinists: If the intermediate steps which supposedly covers the gaps between different species were useful at some point, why aren't the gap fillers existing today? Shouldn't they be useful at all times?

1. A classic is trying to explain the transition from skimming to flying. They cut the wings of a stoneflies to see if half a wing can be useful! Since no such insect exists, they have intelligently tried to fill in the gap by taking intelligent action (cutting the wing in half). And presto, they find that half wing is useful, hence evolution is "proven!" Give me a break: it takes intelligence to fill in the gap if such gap needs to be filled in.
2. Another is the proposal to explain the evolution of flagellum: figure 7 has an intelligently proposed steps, rather than point out the observed gap fillers. The article only shows that it takes intelligence to prove (fill-the-gap) evolution. The question is, if it is so "obvious" why can't we find the proposed gap fillers, esp. since something as small as flagellum should be mutating all the time and these interm changes are "useful?" (Mike Gene has detailed analysis of the original article.)

On a slightly different tangent: In the world of AI (Artificial Intelligence), the past 40+ years of study has only shown what are NOT intelligence and are nowhere near close to creating intelligence. Even the several bright minds (i.e., brilliant intelligence) attacking this problem is insufficient to (re)create intelligence from scratch. A 2 year old human can run circles around any AI program when it comes to day to day learning and applying that knowledge.