Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect

Yeah, how about a spine that's a little more stable than a stack of quarters? A skull actually built to stand on top of the neck? Female legs that are straight enough not to cause major knee problems?Not to mention the frailty of age. Perfectly consistent with evolution but makes no sense in a creationist framework.

Not so. The guy at DC Comics was simply expounding and elaborating on the inner "Batman conciousness" that we all possess - the deep, abiding need we all have that can only be fulfilled by loving, personal relationship with Batman.

The presence of a designer, perhaps? One with the power to create life?I mean, I wouldn't assume Mount Rushmore had been created unless I knew about the existence of designers with the power to carve stone. I.e. sculptors. Trying to infer a designer from a potential design - given the existence of designer-less design - seems backwards.

Yes, I realize that. I'm mostly just thinking aloud. Right, because as humans ourselves we're exposed to the idea of humans making things. And that's how we find out if a thing had been designed, in the past - comparing it to things that are being designed right now.On the other hand, there's no aspect to a clovis point that you could use to infer the existence of humans if you didn't already know that humans exist. There's no magic design essence that is imparted to those things that are designed, so the answer to your question: would be, in my opinion, "nothing at all." There's no part of an object that can tell you it was designed unless you're looking at a part specifically designed for the purpose of telling you it was designed. (The "maker's mark" idea.) Life is nothing like anything we've ever seen designed. Ergo it seems reasonable to me to assume that it was not designed.

The problem is that Randman sees quantum mechanics not as an approximate description of the behavior of very small things, but as a scientific basis for magic.

What evidence do you have for your contention that diseases are caused not by biological agents or congenital flaws but by "disobedience?" According to you, we should find that the disobedient have a higher incidence of disease.Do you have evidence that's the case? If there's no evidence for that, would we be justified in considering it a strike against literal truth of the Bible?