Eh, sort of shooting yourself in the foot there...the point of those traits if designed by a deity is what, exactly, then?
"Eh, sort of shooting yourself in the foot there...the point of those traits if designed by a deity is what, exactly, then?"
You need more work on your understanding of Christian doctrine.
No, those weren't designed in by a deity. Ever heard of the Fall of Man? Lots of stuff on earth wasn't designed in, it came about as a result of man's rebellion.
Doesn't matter. I'm not arguing for ID. I'm arguing that "survival of the fittest" makes no logical sense when considering many traits. It makes great sense when looking at other traits. Thus, it is quite scientific to look for other reasons that animals evolve. My personal opinion is that much evolution occurs simply because certain traits are subject to progressive change, much like our climate. Thus, I would argue that it is just as likely that the Giraffe's neck has a progressive mutation that makes it grow longer independent of any advantage it might give. Survival of the fittest certainly exists in my theory, but as a limit to allowable mutation, not as its driver. This makes a lot more sense to me, than arguing that infinitesimally small changes from generation to generation actually bestowed competitive advantage.
I would also say that this isn't necessarily opposed to Darwin's theory, but according to every Darwinist I've ever come across, it makes me a screaming heretic. I've taken my own conclusions from that.