flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas

Check out Bobby Henderson's website. Hilarious. I just ordered a T-shirt.

That Connie Morris. She's not just an embarassment to Kansas, she's an embarassment to herself.

Here is the beginning of a rather unproductive argument regarding what does and does not constitute an accident. I hope, for everyones's sake, that we don't have to cover this pedantic ground again. Pray expound to us your reasoning that this scenario should seem to you so improbable?

Hi GDR.
I think the other 2 respondents to your post picked out the same two statements that I would have.To postulate design, once you have a good understanding of how evolution works, seems to me far more improbable (not to mention unecessary) than any 'chance-based' explanation, especially given that the actual mechanisms explaining such changes have been clearly delineated and verified by observartion and experimentation. This can not be said for any ID interpretation of how nature 'works'.

Crash has already covered two points here quite well, so I won;t address those. Not necessarily. That is now refered to as 'gradualism'. Gould put forward the idea that some changes can occur very quickly (in evolutionary time) and that these rapid changes can be interspersed by long periods of virtual stasis. This is now known as the theory of 'punctuated equilibria'. Most of us working in biology would not agree with this. When you say 'given the design involved' you are making a huge leap of inference that is not supported by any evidence. It is merely an impression precipitated by your incredulity of the complexity you are observing.Where is the evidence of the designer, or even evidence of any 'guidance' in the process of evolution? There is none. Postulating guidance is a dangerous first step on a path toward a teleological interpretation of life. It's just simply not needed - an unnecessary adddition that doesn't improve or enhance any aspect of the theory. Why not? All these things can be construed as adaptations in different context within human evolution. To scientists it isn't obvious at all.

I can see you are a rationale and objective person and you have apparently reached a 'personal equilibrium' w/r/t the design issue vs. science. I don't want to be argumentative or try and disrupt that equilibrium, but I will address this: A lack of evidence *against* an idea that has no evidence *for* it is hardly a compelling reason to espouse it, or even justification for considering it.But you are right on the philosophy and theology.
It always kind of bothered me that the highest degree in science is 'Doctor of Philosophy' when it should be 'Doctor of Science'.

So do I. I just view evolution as the designer