Examples that are 100% compatable with evolution don't count. In order for intelligent design to be a seperate theory from evolution it has to have predictions that differ from that of evolution.
What you don't understand is that an example can be 100% compatible with evolution and 100% compatible with Intelligent Design. They ask different questions.
Intelligent design is useless as a scientific theory unless it makes predictions that differ from that of evolution. Tredrick's examples don't, and so are meaningless.
Why, they ask completely different questions. The idea that evolution can be guided by an intelligence does not contract the evidence that evolution exists.
Well, of course if you don't let it contradict evolution, then it's not much of a theory, is it?
If you really understood it, you would understand that a premise of ID is that life specifically, and the universe, generally, evolved. It asks the question, why did they evolve?
Tell me, do you consider it possible that there is a supreme being?
