I think if we are to make deductions about intelligent design we have to focus on what is unaffected by man and what cannot be attributed to either of choice, or man’s and animals’ response to their environment.
The moment we enter these abstractions and focus on principles that govern life such as e=mc square, gravity, motion, rotation of the earth both on its axis and around the sun, the fact that life is meaningless without faith (not necessarily faith in God), we see evidence of intelligent design. In fact, in the arrival at nine months for full gestation of a man child in every nook and corner of this earth, a matter out of our control but which our actions can distort, we do not find any evidence for evolution.
It is attempts at living without any sort of faith in things that are good and noble that are creating despair in these times.
Anthropology and History agree man in his or her current form is no more than 50,000 years old. They further agree intellectual man — man with capacity to write — is no more than 4,000 years old.
The biological evolution we observe can be from an age that precedes our span on this earth, meaning life on this earth was wiped out at some point in the past subsequent to which two creative minds — the devil and God, Father of Jesus Christ engaged in creative activity on this earth — one 50,000 years ago (the devil), the other (God) about 6,000 years ago. Note the Bible never says earth was created at timing of creation of intellectual man. The Bible says clearly the planet earth already was in existence prior to creation of intellectual man. It would seem the devil failed at producing creative intellectual man at which point God exercised his power mercifully to extinct the devil’s creation. The devil of course then found a way to pervert God’s creation through the woman.
My point is thought true carefully, the creation narrative is neither stupid nor evidence of unwillingness to engage with evidence of pre-existence of primordial life forms on earth prior to arrival of intellectual man.
I cannot prove creation. But neither can anyone else prove evolution to be a fact. What is possible however is I can provide reasonable interpretation consistent with a creationist view of origins of life.
Evolutionists look at the facts and assume progression. I by imposing my spiritual knowledge can provide a consistent explanation which requires intermittent destructive events to arrive at a plausible creationist account.
Given both creationists and evolutionists have to explain presence of evil in this life, at end of it all, both accounts are spiritual interpretation of evidence not provable facts.
While evil is bad permutation within context of a creationist account, however, it is legal but restrained by organized society within context of the evolutionary account. Which I ask then makes for a better society?
If we will not assume but are open to discussion we may not agree; we, however, can arrive at the conclusion that the other side has merits to their beliefs.
In absence of agreement we at the least listen enough to arrive at respect for the other side.