All I said was that the design doesn't appear very logical, but that it's easily explained in evo terms.
If you assume that the designer is in fact God, then I guess you've crossed the line into theology.
In ID who do you assume the designer is?
Thats being *extremely* charitable.
Dont forget the designer's liberal usage of a whole pile of genetic spare parts from yeast and viruses.
One is the *serves no KNOWN purpose* which is the point I was getting at earlier.
Two is this: the design doesn't appear very logical, but that it's easily explained in evo terms.
Do you realize how that came out sounding? It sounds like you're implying that evolution is very illogical, that it makes no sense. Now of course it would be in a way because there is believed to be no guiding force behind it and natural selection isn't intelligent. But if you get stuck saying it's illogical, then it's going to be much harder to defend.