As I pointed out in a previous post your use of "evidence" is incorrect.
1) THe evidence you choose to use is only relevant if you assume that the mechanisms of evolution cannot acheive results that other natural mechanisms do not
2) The evidence you choose to ignore shows that this is false - with some very limited guidance analagous processes can achieve results superior to those that we can achieve with ID.
Clearly the evidence directly dealing with analagous processes is more relevant than that dealing with processes that are simply grouped under the label "natural". Therefore the argument rests on a highly selective use of evidence to reach the desired conclusion. Moreover since it relies on ignoring evidence of greater relevance than that accepted the conclusion cannot be said to be based on a rational evalutation of the evidence. Rather it is an apologetic argument which misrepresents the true stae of the evidence to reach a conclusion already held as a matter of faith.