Your sarcasm isn't exactly making you look any better, you know. (At least, I hope it's sarcasm. Hard to tell with you and the internets, though.)

What I love is that throughout this entire debate, Intelligent Design, specifically the 'Designer' has been getting broader and broader, to the point where 'natural processes' become an Intelligent Designer...

This is why the Discovery Institute needs to go, it spends its 5 million dollar budget on how to say things in such a way as to make the other side look like an ass for arguing, when most Biologists have better things to be doing, IE their jobs.

Natural process is fine. As long as it isn't random

To be honest, the "its random" response, sounds the same to me as the cliched "goddidit" responce. Its stops further discussion or research of the particulars.

There is a lot of weird and seemingly random stuff that animals and plants do. It would be nicer to investigate/see how those things fit within the totality of the planet. What purpose they serve down at the center of the earth sort to speak.

I hope you're not talking about natural selection when you say "random." The process as a whole is anything but.

Nothing is really random outside the quantum world (and even there we are not sure that randomness actually exists).
It's just that any nonelementary process cannot be broken down to the chain of causes due to its complexity.

Evolution is not random...

A given set of traits will be passed on based upon the viability of those traits. If a monkey is born with gills an no lungs where there is no water, it will die and not pass on this trait. This is an extreme example, but you get the point.

Survival to the age of maturity is the single most important element of traits being passed down. Next is desirability of traits... females have to accept the males genetic material, and vice-versa.

Not random at all... the actual animals are very involed in the process

How does a monky get gills instead of lungs?

The mutations that happen, and when they happen. That is currently being described as just plain old random.

Natural selection occurs long after the important part happens.

edit: Famous example is the story of the dinosaur which got the first wings.

It saw food way on top, and it started jumping. Eventually it grew wings (this was one of the theories that was popular back in the early 1990s)

My example was extreme, it was not to be taken literally. It is common knowledge among biologists, that gills to lung is not an instant jump. We look at modern species in the process of bridging that gap to see one possible means for this change to occur.

As for the dinosaur that has wings, perhaps we should look at 'flying squirrels' or prosimians that have developed flaps of skin to help extend jumps between trees. The bigger flaps get naturally selected, because the smaller flaps plummet to their death. In theory, eventually one of these species might develop a change in the structure of their arm to get better motion, and thus a longer jump, until eventually small change after small change, leads to flight.

As to your theory, Biology disproved the use disuse theory before Darwin, if you are going to argue, avoid sensationalism. (This is why Biologists do not argue with Intelligent Design... ID likes bazaar off the wall arguments. I point to the Mt Rushmore argument that is SOOOOO common among ID people.)

Its not my theory, its the theory listed in many textbooks regarding the orgin of flight. In the early 90s I remember there being a whole big to do, because some biologist found fossils that supported the jumping to gain flight theory.

Squirrel flaps don't lead to wings, nor do they lead to hallow bones.

Once a mutation occurs, then natural selection is a wonderful thing. That isn't random.

Its that initial mutation which is random.

Remember, bat wings are the flaps between the fingers, (flaps that even humans have) not the flaps between the arm and the side. And those are completely different than bird wings and feathers.

Talking about natural selection as if I'm some idiot who doesn't know what natural selection is, doesn't help your case when I'm not discussing natural selection at all.

I'm talking about the random part.

Edit: What is so off the wall about the mount rushmore argument? Clearly there are faces in rocks which we can tell, just by looking at them, that they were not carved by a designer, and clearly there are faces in rocks in which we can tell, just by looking at them, that they were carved by a designer. Similarly, there are faces in rocks that we are not sure if they were carved by a designer or not. ergo: There is something which we can tell intuitively to know if something is designed or not, and just like what is "good" in artwork,(i.e. the golden ratio) can be measured and evaluated.

The only reason to object to this search for design is some religious adherence to randomness.

Conversely, there are plenty of people who get confused into thinking that random faces in rocks are manifestations of the Virgin Mary and making them into religious objects. By no means is our "it's designed" meter infallible.

If you're talking about the actual random parts in evolution, you've essentially gone down to saying that tiny mutations involving slightly larger flaps of skin between fingers have to have been designed because you can intuitively tell that they have. But we already know that mutations can produce things like that, just as they can produce webbed feet, hyperactive hair growth or elongated tailbones in humans. If you're NOT talking about the random parts of evolution, well, that's natural selection for you! Natural selection causes the ones that got lucky with their random mutations to survive better. It's a process you can't -not- have, just like what creationists call microevolution.