No worries, Jonathon. By the way, that was a nice exposition on the distinction between 'reason' and 'purpose'. I find in conversations on this subject that people many times misunderstand it, and they end up anthropomorphizing evolution until it starts sounding very much like Intelligent Design. It's easy to do this in science - just yesterday a colleague of mine accused me (in a good-natured way) of anthropomorphizing atoms in my attempt to make the subject of bonding easy for my students to grasp. His comment was, "Oh, so now atoms have desires? What next, emotions?! What the heck are you teaching these kids?" I resisted the urge to ask him whether my teaching chemistry this way made the collection of atoms inside his brain register an emotional response, and, if so, what exactly constituted that response - but his point was well taken.
What do we really mean, though, when we say that there are simple physical 'forces' such as gravity, electrostatics, magnetism, etc.? Do we truly understand the answer to the underlying question of why these forces exist? I'll handle that one - absolutely not. At the most fundamental level, all we ever do in science is describe WHAT we observe - we are helpless to answer the grand question of WHY. In that sense, matter DOES have mysterious 'desires', a mind of its own, if you will - but that sense can be easily misunderstood if we're not careful. When speaking about evolution, the irony of these different understandings can become especially great, since the process contains such a degree of randomness. There is a fine line between the way the atheist and the theist use words like 'reason', 'purpose', 'desire', 'design', 'accomplish', 'built', 'made', etc. It leaves me wondering if the debate is so heated not because of the science per se but because of the implications of interpreting the science one way or the other.
-Shawn
P.S. And, um, yeah - bass bugs. Uh, make them obnoxious. Piss the bass off. In other words, cause a combination of light and pressure waves to send a signal to the bass' eyes and ears that, once transported and translated via complex mechanisms, irritates the complex network of atoms in their brains to send electrical signals that, again through complicated pathways, raise certain hormone levels, triggering a carefully orchestrated series of muscle spasms which makes the fish inhale your fly and thrash about violently after sensing, via additional complex mechanisms, the hook in its mouth. I'll leave the word 'orchestrated' up to the reader to interpret, as well as the origin of any of these other complicated interactions of matter, light, sound, and electricity. Who ever knew bass fishing was so complicated?