I might be wrong, but I believe all that injection molded plastic rose up to meet the dictates of CAFE standards.

It isn't always the case, but many times "going green" has awful environmental consequences in extraction, manufacturing/finished goods, technology maintenance, and costly or toxic recycling or disposal of products. Nuclear is a prime example. Yeah, it has an incredible output of electricity while in its service cycle, but obtaining fissionable material and then storing (virtually forever) the spent fuel byproducts makes the math on nuclear "iffy." Wind, solar, and battery technology have so many real "costs" associated with them that it might be simpler to let Elon find a bunch of carbon capture methods, and build them to offset fossil fuels, rather that the toxic and expensive "green alternatives."

Economics is much more difficult than people want to admit.

This is not a trolling comment. The problem of total energy costs (environmental, economic, regulatory) is more complicated when you factor in TOTAL costs knock-on effects.

if i gave the belief that evolution was predicated on TOTAL randomness, that was not my point.

my point is this. the components of evolution: random collisions of atoms, elements, molecules, and the like in order to form the rudiments of life; natural selection and comparative advantage (which is not only plausible but verifiable and the easiest thing about evolution to accept); the highly suspect "macroevolution" and the like, attempt to explain the "evolution" of everything in general, and even tries to explain "evolving" one thing into something ultimately completely different.

even if you believe this happened over VAST eras of time it still stretches the bounds of rational thought, given the LAWS of thermodynamics and entropy. all things tend to decay and simplicity, not complexity. if anything, even if you did believe in evolution, it would only seems rational to me that evolution proves the existance of God since evolution itself violates the laws of nature.

you can talk about jumping genes and transpositrons, etc, et al, ad nauseam, to try to explain it, but the athiest and or scientific community attempt to use athiestic rationalism as an explanation for everything and break the fundamental rule of science. they have all started with a conclusion ("evolution isn't a theory, IT'S A FACT" because God doesn't exist) and work tirelessly to try to make everything fit this theory.

excuse me, but the last time i read the scientific method it was "observe, hypothesize, test, adjust and repeat until you identify facts or even define laws." it isn't "observe, use your bias to create the conclusion in your mind, and then test and repeat until you make observations fit your a priori conclusion." that's what the Church has often been accused of, even though universities and science wouldn't exist in the western world without the Church. how ironic.

i personally do not believe that evolution, creation, or even intelligent design ought to be taught in public schools. however, as with so much of the post-enlightment, socialist, leftist garbage shoved down everyone's throats for the past 200+ years, teaching something without an agenda isn't good enough. some half-witted alternative has to be rammed down every kid's throat, and if you don't like it, tough. you're just "ignorant!" textbooks, teachers, scientists, and politicians should be less like "journalists" and more like "reporters." gives chidlren the facts and leave your stupid explainations as to "why" at the door.

evolution is first and foremost, a theory. it is a theory with many holes in it, a theory that is "evolving" itself, and lastly is a theory with an agenda. it is the athiest way to explain "why."