In my opinion, Intelligent Design is a speculative science just like evolution is. Both can point to the same fossil evidence and biological facts and offer speculative theories that match the known facts. Both theories will depend on a black box: evolution would have to explain how can irreducible complexities of life be formed wholly at random, and the ID will have to explain who the Designer is.
The fact that a designer is something religion also postulates is a corollary that is uncomfortable to the atheist; it should not be an impediment to teaching ID in schools, even if religious curriculum is excluded by law.
Back to the male nipple question, the best explanation is religious fundamentalist, and not naturalist. God created man first, then He made woman from the man. Male nipples, -- a minor sensory organ,-- were the original design. Female nipples are adaptation of an existing feature to the additional tasks the female body has.
So far, a plausible pathway has been postulated for every IC claimed. If you are really interested, check out www.talkdesign.org and www.talkreason.org.
"The fact that a designer is something religion also postulates is a corollary that is uncomfortable to the atheist; it should not be an impediment to teaching ID in schools, even if religious curriculum is excluded by law. "
The reason ID should not be taught is its inability to develop a workable theory.
"Back to the male nipple question, the best explanation is religious fundamentalist, and not naturalist. God created man first, then He made woman from the man. Male nipples, -- a minor sensory organ,-- were the original design. Female nipples are adaptation of an existing feature to the additional tasks the female body has."
Male features are a result of specific hormones during development. Everyone starts out morphologically female at conception, then either becomes male or stays female. How does this fit your hypothesis?