Is it intelligent to design evolvable species?

On first glance, APRIORI existence of biological mechanisms for adapation (micro-evo) might seem to behoove redemptive ID.On the other hand, unchecked randomness of mutations (or stellar entropy/evolution) might also behoove a cursing ID, that is, ID promoting universal decay, destruction, and outer darkness forever.But, mega-evolution, extraordinary speciation, hopeful monster mutations, etc., do seem to render untenable the whole EX-NIHILO necessity of ID hypothesis.Personally, I don't see how theistic evos can live with their fallacies. I'd rather be all atheistical-evo or all creo in my faith.

...And yes, I'm aware of A PRIORI NS (micro-evolution) mechanisms...Just another personal hypothesis:Univeral/Global Mechanisms are not a sum of their atomic and sub-atomic mechanisms.Hunt all you want for scientific mechanisms, its futile on the sub-atomic level to

Help me Adminshraf, I'm about to get squashed by a foot here:A leftist just insulted my ignorance.Somebody here want to tell me what a 'quantum' really is? (...not the pseudo-scientific definition from the gramatically correct natural academy of science). No, didn't think so. What about 'photons', 'quarks'? Your pseudo-sientific def. is not enough. I'm afraid you'll have to invoke ID, sorry.(Note, micro vs. macro is covered elsewhere and does not seem pertinent here. Let's keep this post from devolving into other disjointed topics).

Who says A PRIORI doesn't apply to NS?...Razd? ...Your sheer quantity of posts? ...Your peers? ...the Natural Academy of Science-falsely-so-called?Again, "Micro vs. Macro" is discussed AD NAUSEUM (forgive the grammar) and seems covered pretty fully (by both sides). If you really want to belabor that issue, please read what is already written and/or propose a new topic.Please note this apparent fallacy of authority acting as if it were science itself.Peace