No, you're quite wrong here. The site I linked to is specifically arguing against ID, by showing that the "I" is sometimes not apparent.
The arguments for standard biology are quite different: the stratification of fossils, shared genetic markers, biogeography, and so on and so on.
There are lots of ... uhmmm ....suboptimal ... structures found in nature.. [followed by a quote from Dempski].
I was using "... uhmmm ....suboptimal ... " as a euphemism for "really stupid".
Not even Lucas Electrics wires cars with the analog of the recurrent laryngeal nerve: the wire from the dashboard to the motor that raises the driver-side window looping around the rear axle, the one for the passenger-side looping around the transmission.
A quote from Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, referring to the male urethra
A mechanical engineer, a chemical engineer and a civil engineer were discussing the human body in the pub. "The body was clearly designed by a mechanical engineer... look at all the levers and joints." "No no no, it was obviously designed by a chemist, it's full of amazing chemical reactions!" "I'm sorry", said the civil engineer, "but it was undoubtedly a civil engineer. I've run countless sewage pipes through recreational areas myself..."
Read the link; lots of interesting natural history.
I have read the link. It is nothing but the the time-honored Darwinist undefined and untested opinion of optimality or perfection based on unexamined theological presuppositions, that the writer is in no position to make in the first place, so Darwinism must be true argument.
Cordially,