Science 101
usually evolution is seen as a totally random process with no goal or direction but that is not entirely true.
Mmmmm... well, it is goalless and directionless in the sense that Eohippus didn't click its heels together one day and decide to become a horse, or in the sense that H. habalis decided that life would be more fun with a larger cerebellum.
Looking back we can see a 'goal' but that is solely an accident of perspective; someTHING doing the same thing on this planet in one billion years time would have a vastly different conclusion to us now.
And direction is nearly almost as much of an accident of perspective; it might be fairer to say that evolutionary change has momentum instead of direction.
If it were then the male peacock would not have the giant tail the female peacocks find sexy. Survival of the fittest does not favor variation that is easier to catch, yet, what peacocks think the perfect peacock looks like was stronger than that too.
Sexual selection is a fab topic (your post is like Christmas even if I don't agree with you (which I've yet to decide, LOL); it get real dull talking to most Creationists and ID-ers as they critique a science they rarely have adequate knowledge of).
Not only peacocks tails but human intelligence and the male human penis are other examples of characteristics that likely arose through sexual selection. Thank Darwin (joke) that the chromosomes that carry the 'smart' characteristics female pre-humans liked are not sex linked, otherwise human genders could have vastly difference levels of intelligence.
But sexual selection doesn't mean there is a goal or direction; it allows runaway evolution, which can look very purposed.
It's all very well being a hypothetical 'classically' super-fit (can escape predation very well) pre-peacock with no big tail who can't get laid (pun intended) as all the pre-peahen chicks (on a roll here) want males with big tails 'just because' that's the way the genes 'landed'. But of course, that's assuming their is no commonality of genes for big tails and being classically 'fit'.
I mean if females select in their mates a characteristic not directly linked to 'fitness' in classical natural selection but which infers 'fitness' in the classical sense. A phenotypical characteristic is selected essentially at random by some females that ALSO selects for genotypical fitness to survive (even if it looks silly and unwieldy... hey, I mean the peacock tail, not the male human penis).
The males get to survive AND breed. The females get chicks with genes for surviving, having big tails, and liking big tails.
Other females who do not select big tails don't get chicks with the genes for big tails, liking big tails, and get not-so good genes for surviving, thus over a short period (evolutionarily speaking) the frequency of gene distribution in a population changes dramatically, and the having/liking big tails becomes almost universal in the species' genome. Females with other mate selection criteria may simply not do well enough to survive (genetically) at all, or might give rise to speciation over time.
In other words, peacocks with big tails must actually be quite good at escaping predation, by definition; the females love of big tails also selects the genes that allow the big tails to survive despite having mother nature's equivalent of a neon sign hanging off their arse. But that's not why the peahens selected the big tails.
Pre-human females selection of smart mates meant their mates were more likely to survive although that's not why they selected those characteristics.
The extinct Irish Elk with massive antlers is possibly an example of where it all went terribly wrong and the females selection of big antlers became so strong the species actually died out as those that could breed ('cause the does let them) did not actually have very 'fit' genes in the classical sense.
Obviously the mechanism varies according to other aspects of sexual biology; in some species females don't mate unless they want to, in others they have limited or no choice.
I'd be very interested in hearing more of what you mean by goal and direction; if I mention Teilhard and the noosphere I assume I ring some bells with you?
As regards the meaning of life, there is no answer (well, other than 42), just a question;
Why do you assume there is a meaning to life separate from that which we give it with our own effort?
Seems to me assuming there is a meaning to life is just another form of presuppositionalism.
science and religion is coming closer together
They ARE? I didn't realise religion had stepped from the shadows of opinion into the light of fact. Until then...
And the ID debate actually helped.
Helped show that even when Creationist try to dress up 'non-specific creator' Creationist dogma in new clothes it is still unscientific? I assume you're aware of Michel Behe having to admit in court if ID was taught in schools they'd have to also teach other untestable hypotheses like Astrology.
Academia was forced to do a better job communicating with the layman
I agree this could often be done better.
and even though ID didn't have anything that could survive peer-review people who would normally not read anything scientific, were learning about how cells work and other rather complex topics.
If ID had lead to individuals making a personal study of science and reaching reasonable conclusions based on facts it would have been a good thing. Instead the work of a few people was pointed to by many who didn't understand the details of the discussion, but who wanted to defend their pre-existing opinions and were happy to do it with other people's arguments and all the risks that entails.
Despite the fact ID dogma like irreducible design has been refuted, the fact ID-ers typically regurgitate 2nd hand apologisms with no real knowledge of source data is proven by the fact most threads on ID on this website are full of people quoting ID dogma that's already dis-proven.
Of course, as guiding lights of the Wedge Movement won't admit that ID is a deeply flawed hypothesis, their followers, as they base their knowledge on the leaders of the movement rather than independent learning, are very likely to make the same error.
I'm clear you're not defending ID's beliefs, the above is just me reflecting on your comments about ID
