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?
I am not an ID enthusiast. As a Roman Catholic I am entirely comfortable to let the science run its course as it explains the created world. If the Intelligent Design's central claims have all a random-evolution explanation, then it does not make evolution any less speculative, but it makes ID failing the Occam razor test, and so, prehaps, it should be reserved for higher levels of academia. As a bystander in this, however, I cannot escape the feeling that bigoted fanaticism is all on the evolutionists' side. I cannot account for it any differently than assuming that it is an anti-religion bias that is driving them, not a search for truth, and so I cannot take the evolutionists at their word.
The woman-first nipple theory is, of course, just as good at explaining male nipples as man-first. Neither has anything to do with evolution and they are not mutually contradictory either, because we only have scriptural knowledge of the order of creation, not the gestational order of development.