First a comment on the OP. My initial reaction was that it is the kind of "Just So" story that give evolution a bad name. Maybe this isn't a problem for the scientist, but is just the nature of how the press reports (or misreports) science.
I take
Message 3 as holmes saying about the same thing, and expanding on it.
Don't you think if you were going to 'design' or 'create' something as biologically complex as pregnancy (internal fertilization followed by gestation) you would do so without designing into it conflict and antagonism between mother and child before birth?
Some sort of antagonism is inherent in the problem of reproduction. It necessarily introduces a conflict over resources.
1. because the inherent conflict and antagonism they entail that seems to contradict the inherent 'perfection' implied by ID and creation.
Why this emphasis on perfection? The idea of ID is supposed to be an extrapolation from observed human design. And we do not see perfection in human design. Rather, we see pragmatic solutions to problems. Complaints about lack of perfection seem to be weak arguments against ID or against creationism.
2. because ToE predicted what was observed BEFORE it was observed - what in ID or creation 'theory' could possibly have predicted the existence of this type of conflict?
The old testament predicted the coming of Jesus, before it happened, but this was not recognized till later. Or did it so predict - see
Prophecy of Messiah: Isaiah 7 where this is being debated.
Don't we have the same problem here? A rather vague prediction, which is later construed as having predicted what is observed. I'm not against vague predictions. But we shouldn't read too much into it when evidence shows that the predictions seem to have been confirmed.
holmes writes:
I might add that if the above is true, it actually acts as a counter to the "selfish gene" theory.
You have touched on a very salient point here. What is implied is a form of group selection or kin selection effect, and we recognize these types of selection only when they run counter to selfishness - otherwise simple individual fitness is an adequate explanation of behavior.
Group selection has always been controversial, and rightly so.
But the evolution of altruism could be a whole new thread topic.
Try
Kin Selection & Altruism.
Not at all. But as you are someone who believes in evolution, I do find your frustration puzzling.
Holmes is critical of weak and unconvincing arguments. I don't see anything puzzling in his reaction here.
™ Version 4.2
