I wrote:
> what about mutations (e.g., due to cosmic rays) or genetic drift? what
> about the meteor that seems to have wiped out the dinosaurs?
Tommy Kelly wrote:
> Okay, in the topics of "mutations" the word accident might be suitable, but if it is a natural biological process it must be more natural than accidental.
> I don't consider meteor crashes to be accidental, since it too is a natural – in this case, cosmological – process. To say it was an accident is to say it might have been design – read: created – to happen. Since I live in Alabama, I know that argument can be used as a linking point for people who believe in the Intelligent Design.<
of course, it's a matter of what one means by "accident." But the process of natural evolution inherently involves "accidental" matters. Mutations, genetic drift, unpredicted changes in the geological environment, strange results from normal reproduction, etc. create an extremely varied result. Then selection happens, culling out the creatures that can't survive to reproduce in sufficient numbers.
The idea that accidents having a role opens the door for IDiotic theory isn't helpful. Even if ID is knocked down, some new creationist theory will arise. So what Darwinists should do is to stop pretending that their theory explains everything (as most have already). Any theory that pretends to explain everything is likely to be tautological. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl M., paraphrasing Dante A.