James (and all),
To follow up on your response:
"far to complex to have evolved."
This is a statement of absolution, inferring that it is impossible for evolution to be the case. I am not willing to go that far, and even if someone believes in ID or some other form of creationism, I believe all should stay open to the possibility that in a Universe of infinite age ( t = infinity ), the number of occurrences of a highly-improbable event ( probability of occurence = 1 / infinity ), the number of occurrences is undefined ( #_occurrences = probability * chances_to_occur = probability * t = ( inf ) * ( 1/inf ) = inf / inf = undefined). Since it is undefined, we cannot say with certainty, that it could or could not happen. Though, if the universe is not of infinite time ( t > 0 ), then an absolute chance exists at some point, assuming the universe does not die before the event can happen, so the odds are for it (or really, anything else). Sorry, I love doing math with infinity.
I guess part of my "belief" structure is that though I may prefer a certain view of the world, I am less and less willing to disregard others completely, simply on the basis that I cannot logically prove or disprove someone.
"failure means extinction"
I do not agree with this. Failure does not mean extinction necessarily, but it does mean the specie will most likely be dominated by a superior specie. A sea shrimp is by no means a complex being (relative to others), and nature seems to show us that inferior species are required in order to continue other species (but the shrimp are specialized enough to survive in great numbers and continue). Ah, the key word, specialty seems to be more important than complexity. If complexity were the main emphasis of evolution, there would be nothing but humans and everything else would be extinct, but our intellectual complexity is all for nothing against the specialty of a shark swimming around us when stranded in the sea (even though said shark has some very complex aspects to it, but its specialty in its environment is very apparent).
Well, I am glad that we have some people voicing an opinion other than one that leans more to the materialistic. However, I put a question to you regarding intelligent design: if a being of infinite power created us, why would he "micro manage" the known Universe to the point that everything is the way it is because the supreme being willed it so? Would it not be more interesting, imagining yourself as a supreme being, to start the spark of life and to see how it develops? That show would be a lot more entertaining to me than watching something I comprehensively created (the difference between watching a sitcom and "Whose line is it anyways", where certain established rules and tools are provided, but the organisms (comedians) are allowed to use those tools to accomplish whatever goal).
Also, I really hate the idea that an all-powerful being is focusing on us all day. To me, that seems not only boring, but selfish.
However, again, back to my first point, I cannot prove ID wrong, I can only attempt to minimize its probability based on "deific psychology".