Evolution. "Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest" (Gilbert, et. al. 1996, p. 361). The anti-ID site Panda's Thumb gives the abstract for the Gilbert paper, which it seems gives an alternative to ID for the puzzle of macroevolution:

“A new and more robust evolutionary synthesis is emerging that attempts to explain macroevolution as well as microevolutionary events. This new synthesis emphasizes three morphological areas of biology that had been marginalized by the Modern Synthesis of genetics and evolution: embryology, macroevolution, and homology. The foundations for this new synthesis have been provide by new findings from developmental genetics and from the reinterpretation of the fossil record. In this nascent synthesis, macroevolutionary questions are not seen as being soluble by population genetics, and the developmental actions of genes involved with growth and cell specification are seen as being critical for the formation of higher taxa. In addition to discovering the remarkable homologies of homeobox genes and their domains of expression, developmental genetics has recently proposed homologies of process that supplement the older homologies of structure. Homologous developmental pathways, such as those involving the wnt genes, are seen in numberous embryonic processes, and they are seen occurring in discrete regions, the morphogenetic fields. These fields (which exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos) are proposed to mediate between genotype and phenotype. Just as the cell (and not its genome) functions as the unit of organic structure and function, so the the morphogenetic field (and not the genes or the cells) is seen as a major unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution.”

A Coin Flip Example for Intelligent Design

1. Suppose we come across a hundred bags of 20-chip draws from hundred different urns. Each bag contains 20 red chips. We naturally deduce that the urns contain only red chips. (Click here to read more.)

2. We realize that somebody might have come along and rigged the bags. So we decide to look at videotape of what happened.

3. On looking at the videotape, we see that someone came along and took away 95 of the bags and replaced them with new bags. We now have lost those bags' evidence of redness.

4. But what about the other 5 bags? Our videotape showed nobody replacing them. Shouldn't we be surer than at (1) that those 5 urns contain only red chips? And mightn't we deduce that the other 95 urns contain only red chips too?