Not necessarily. You're the one insisting that ID means optimum design, not me.
Tell me, why did He experiment for two billion years with just prokaryotes? Why did it take Him so long to get interested in multicellulars? Did he not know how? Why such a long learning curve? Why such a tremendous rush of achievement right in the last half a billion years? Why did the invention of sex seem to make such a big difference?
Maybe you could tell Him how He could and should have done it differently. Personally, I hesitate to second guess Him.
Aquinasfan: Maybe you could tell Him how He could and should have done it differently. Personally, I hesitate to second guess Him.
You see, here's where evolution has a fairly long-winded story to tell with a lot of implications for how the world works. All of which you chuck for the luxury of saying, "I never second-guess HIM."
I've mentioned clones evolve slowly relative to sexuals. There's a fascinating scenario in which early organisms rather freely exchanged materials through bacterial conjugation. Budding and other cloning techniques then produced a long stasis, ending only when "modern" mitosis developed, leading fairly quickly to meiosis, sex at the cellular level. That produced the Precambrian "sizzle" of suddenly fast evolution leading to the Cambrian Explosion of Creationist pamplet fame. (You still see people posting that all the phyla of life appear full-blown for the first time "at the bottom of the geologic column in the Cambrian.")
The preceding paragraph is the speed-reader's version of Schopf's Cradle of Life, if you want to expand your horizons. (But you don't.)
And you have, "I don't second-guess Him." And you're upset you don't have equal time in biology class!!??