The problem is, that ID is not "clearly silly." In fact, it is a quite reasonable theory.
Consider: we humans have been engaged in Intelligent Design for thousands of years. What else would you call the results of selective breeding and, more recently, direct genetic manipulation, if not Intelligent Design?
As humans gain increasing facility in genetic
What seems to me "silly" is your willingness to cast aside real, hard evidence to the effect that ID is at least a viable theory: human experience provides abundant evidence of its efficacy.
Are you really being reasonable here, or are you being "scientific" only in the ideological sense of the term?
I won't say that ID is the explanation. I'm merely suggesting to you that your rejection of ID is not based on evidence, which argues to its efficacy as an explanation.
> Consider: we humans have been engaged in Intelligent Design for thousands of years.
What evidence do you have for some Intelligent Designer intentionally and specifically manipulating Every Single Species Ever over the course of more than a billion years?
Your example, instead of supporting ID, in fact bolsters basica evolutionary principles. Selective breeding is no different from evolution, in that certain inheirited characteristics are passed on preferentially over others.
> ID is at least a viable theory
Your example shows that purely natural forces can change a species. You have not provided a shred of evidence that someone actually "bred" or gengineered every single species ont he planet.
ID remains no more than Poofism with a gloss of pseudoscience.