Believe what you will. Darwinian evolution is based on the geological theories of Hutton and Lyell, which deny the Biblical chronologies and Noah's Flood. There are Orthodox Jews, including very traditional Yeshivish ones, who interpret the opening verses of the Torah according to Darwin, but aside from heretics they all switch to literalism once Adam arrives on the scene and accept everything from that point onward (including Methuselah, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc.) as literal history (how many times do I have to say this, people?). Of course, none of the pro-evolution statements issued by Orthodox bodies mentions this little fact, but they are trying to hide their own fundamentalism. I can't help but wonder, however, how subscribing to uniformitarian naturalism during the period when nature was in the process of being created and then switching to miracle mode can be squared with basic logic--especially qal vachomer.
I do understand that the Orthodox rabbinate is in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, since the "enlightenment," Jewishness has acquired a reputation for skepticism, intellectualism, and free-thinking dissent (the prior 3100 years of Jewishness seems to have slipped into an Orwellian memory hole). Most non-observant Jews consider religiosity to be "un-Jewish," and the rabbis have to appeal to these people in order to bring them back home. On the other hand, now that Noachism is beginning to blossom here and there (mostly among fundamentalist "rednecks"), these same rabbis have to appeal to these people who define Jewishness by the Book of Joshua. Not a fun position to be in, is it? Of course, it wouldn't be a quandary for me, but then, I'm one of Eric Hoffer's "true believers."
In case you haven't noticed, the evolutionists on this board reject G-d and "intelligent design" outright, so I don't know who you think you're impressing with your compromise. "Intelligent design" is merely non-literalist "theistic evolution" which insists that at some point G-d breaks out of "fairyland" into reality. Anti-ID evolutionists are not merely non-literalists. They construct a gulf between "reality" and "speculative philosophy," with G-d confined to the latter, never intruding into mundane reality.
I am not one of those who sees an imminent collapse of Darwinism, but should such a thing occur I predict that all the Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, classical Protestants, etc., who have spent the past 150 years shooting barbs at "rednecks" and loudly claiming "we have never had a problem with evolution!" will suddenly appear and loudly claim credit for the victory of creationism, patting themselves on the back for "never giving in to modernity." The sad fact is that out of all the peoples of the world, only the "rednecks" have remained true to the vision all the ancient religions once held to but are now so ashamed of.
I should say "Divine Design" rather than ID. And it is peculiar that evidence points to certain forms of evolution, yet consistently lacks the crucial "joining" points.
Though I love science so too that I sometimes argue with God as to His creation. Though as I said, "If I knew Him I'd be Him."
Two books lately have influenced my thinking and inspiration: Gerald Schroeder, The Science Of God and Guillermo Gonzaalez and Jay W Richards The Privileged Planet.
Thanks for your insights.