Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?

If the designer doesn't design things to evolve what other choices does s/he/it have?If the environment is held constant then living things may survive without evolving. But a constant environment is soooo boring.If the environment changes then if living things don't evolve the designer must step in constantly to create new forms to fit the new environment. This could get tedious though I believe it was a suggestion of those who first realized that a single creation didn't work.

LOVE IT!!! Consise, precise and complete. The question is answered in two words.

You replied to yourself but I presume meant to reply to Modulous.He answered this. Jar has answered it more succintly.To rephrase it a third time. The designer also designed a very non stable Earth environment. In that environment non-evolvable means total extinction over time.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?The topic is about designing species that can evolve. Any existing or past adaptation to a specific set of conditions isn't the topic.By the way, saying "Such a complex process could not have evolved." is something very hard to support. You many not understand how it could have but I am comfortable that it can. If all you have is your own lack of knowledge to support your ideas don't expect them to be taken seriously.