That is an interesting point. I am curious though by what you mean by "better" bacteria? Did you mean "better" as in bacteria that would be resistant to anti-biotics or to immune systems? If so... then there is a problem because there is only one way bacteria becomes more resistant; genetic selection through a series of generations. This is also known as "survival of the fittest", genetic adaptations to environment changes or... evolution.
And so... the Intelligent Designer would be using evolution for creating "better" bacteria. The problem is it would be proof that evolution does exist. I was under the impression that evolution and ID were mutually exclusive (am I wrong?).
Nice catch on my sloppy thinking there.
My designer was in essence Farmer Brown breeding whatever.
What was in my mind was diversity of kinds, but I have no justification for it. I sort of had a mental image of bacteria chomping on teeth and getting calcium out for the designer to have more calcium in usable form.
I've just pulled an all nighter, I take responsibility for my sloppy thinking but not for the wierd mental images.
Trying to be more coherent: ID would not preclude evolution as many of its proponents agree. The designer would be the guiding hand culling out "errors" and wrong pathways. It could be perfectly scientific if we just change the scale and re-evaluate the goal of the designer. We could even devise experiments designed to reveal traces of a designer.