[GreenFreeper]

One side postulates that living structures are exclusively accidental. The other side says that, at least at some points, these structures are intentional. Falsifiying one leads to the other. If you can imagine a "third possibility," it would be good if you spoke up now.

You stating, 'that because evolution is not accidental, proves that evolution is intentional" is like (hate to use an overused analogy) saying that because the sun does not revolve around the earth, the earth must revolve around the sun. While this may be true, the earth could revolve around many other things. The multitude of possibilities are only limited by the human mind. Suppose evolution, as described today, is totally false. The opposite of the Darwinian postulate is far from intential. Even so, the term you use, accidental, isn't entirely accurate in the evolutionary context. Speciation is not entirely blind as it is guided by both the biotic and abiotic environment, as well as the physical forces and the laws that govern molecular interactions. While genetic changes are randomly made, integration is not random. Consequently, just because something is shown to be non-random, does not imply that it is intentional.

[WildTurkey]

Speciation is not entirely blind as it is guided by both the biotic and abiotic environment, as well as the physical forces and the laws that govern molecular interactions.

Don't ruin his day. He paid good money for that DVD.