Originally posted by: JohnCU
The environment does not adapt to allow it's inhabitants to survive, the inhabitants adapt to the environment. Survival of the fittest.
Things are the way they are because that's how we evolved.
survival of the fittest isn't necessarily a sufficient explanation for macro evolution. evidence points to macro evolution often occurring in 'bursts' in a short amount of time. this theory is often referred to as punctuated equilibrium, bursts of change followed by long periods of little or no change- this better describes the evidence than a purely gradual darwinian natural selection. a proponent of this idea is stephen jay gould of harvard, who is one of the most prominent biologists in the world today (and also a staunch critic of intelligent design). here's an article from gould
Evolution of Life on Earth
however, i wouldn't say all of intelligent design is all crock. i woudl suggest william dembski's
The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory) . he is a mathematician who is one of the leading voices in the intelligent design movement.
-edit-
yes, it is true that dembski is no biologist, and his writings are more mathematical and philosphical. just wanted to point sources to both sides. dembski readings are interesting, and if anything can spur discussion. michael behe attempts to make the case from a biological perspective - although his works are oft criticized by his peers.
i just encourage people to keep an open mind. although evolutionary change is a fact, people blindly assume darwinian natural selection as the only driver of macro evolution, when in fact, there are other newer and more probable theories. as i pointed out above gould has a lot of good writings, and he debunks a lot of the creationism/intelligent design arguments.