RE statistics - sorry to have not been clearer - of course the changes don't take place at the same time, and they would happen in parallel across an entire species, but this still doesn't explain a lot - i.e. why isn't there more variation in the outcome? With so many changes occurring during the transition from one species to another, why did so few of the billions of potential combinations work out to be new species? And can chance alone still account for the complexity seen at the micro level? It is still more parsimonious to assume that there was a guiding intelligence (God or otherwise) at work with a blueprint in mind. If I were to stumble across a watch lying on a beach, I would naturally assume something so complex were designed by an intelligent being, not that it were to have been formed on its own by chance.
For me, the bottom line is this. I don't think religion or 6 day creation (sorry, guys, but I don't buy the science of that any more than I do evolution by chance!) should be taught in public schools. But I do resent the fact that I had to be a 35 year old with a PhD in psychobiology before I knew that evolutionary theory has some big holes and that alternative theories exist. Exploring these alternatives is becoming more and more of a "hot topic" in science, and kids do not need to be sheltered from alternate theories, but encouraged to examine all of the ideas on the subject and make up their own minds. All of my science textbooks say that certain animals have similarities because they evolved from a common ancestor - as if this is a proven fact. It may be so, but it may not, and it is poor science instruction to state it as fact.
Speaking of poor instruction, I need to get back to my homeschooling duties! I'm glad people are talking about this, though!
Way to go homeschool mom! My missus is schooling two.
This isn't an accurate statement. There aren't any "big holes" in evolutionary theory. Like any scientific theory, the theory will be modified as more evidence comes in or discarded if evidence comes in to falsify it.
When scientists disagree with other scientists about evolution, they are proposing that evolutionary theory is invalid - they are delving into the details.
By the standard you are employing, volcanology has "huge holes" because scientists don't know all of the answers right now. Like I pointed out before, scientists can't explain why the Yellowstone super volcano that erupts every 600,000 years is 40,000 overdue for an eruption. That doesn't mean that volcanology has "huge holes".
I don't mean this in a offensive or rude way, but it concerns me that a PhD in psychobiology would be ignorant of the scientific method. Again, by your understanding of the scientific method, no field of scientific study could ever be taught and your scientific degree would be worthless.
Also, there are no "alternative theories" to evolution that meet the scientific standard for a "theory". ID is not a scientific theory because there is no way to falsify it - whatever evidence that comes in could just be explained away by "that's just the way the designer did it".
Science only deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Science must always pursue a naturalistic path because supernatural is out of its scope.