There is plenty of evidence which shows random physical reactions to be destructive rather than creative.
Quite apart from the fact that 'random reaction' is something of an oxymoron, whilst there is some evidence for apparent randomness at the quantum level, that randomness balances out (which calls into question whether it's entirely 'random' at all) at the macroscopic level. As to whether a particular phenomenon is 'destructive' or 'constructive', that's a matter of perspective - forest fires are destructive in the short term, but an integral part of the longer term ecosystem of the forest.
And the fact that we are unable to detect anything other than physical reactions does not necessarily lead on to the conclusion that there can be nothing other than physical reactions involved.
No, it doesn't. However, it's not merely the absence of any evidence for non-physical phenomena, its the fact that at no point in the chain of events do we see a phenomenon that doesn't have an immediate, apparent physical cause. If there's a non-physical element influencing this, then where is the sign of its influence? Where are the unexplained effects?
Have you ever tried replying to a post by random tapping on a keyboard?
Not personally, but I'm pretty sure I've responded to a couple in my time...
Or producing entities of conscious awareness from exploding star debris?
I don't need to try that, I can see that all around me.
Have you read the Bible?
I have. I wouldn't recommend it.
But what is the ultimate causation of any deliberate assertion?
What makes you think there's an ultimate cause for anything? You are presuming there's some significance in the grander scheme to your thought processes that can stretch back to some landmark event - cosmically speaking, your thought process could be exactly as significant as the slight shift of a grain of aluminium oxide dust on a distant, cold moon in an uninhabited backwater world at the far end of a galaxy far, far away...
O.
[/quote]
