@Frank Apisa,
The response to your question depends on how you define the terms of the question. If you can't define a concept, you can't use it in a logical argument. You realize that the following deduction: "if there is the possibility of a SMURF, there is the possibility of intelligent design" is flawed logic, right? Why is it flawed? Because nothing in the concept of SMURF implies a capacity to design new living species... Therefore, for your version to have some logic in it, your concept of GOD must imply some capacity to intelligence and to the design of new species... You might wish to clarify that, as well as the difference between gods and other categories in nature, like plants, stones and animals. Are gods mineral, vegetal or animal? Or something else but then what? You've been avoiding that issue forever.
Then there is the question of what is "intelligent design"? What does it postulate? What does it mean to say "an intelligence designed the hippopotamus"? That god made the first hyppo couple out of inanimate matter like in Genesis, or that he just made the fist bacteria and the general rules of the evolution game, which eons later led to the hyppo? Or that He created life and evolution, PLUS nudged the natural process of evolution here or there by way of 'purposeful mutations' in the genome of His creatures, eg to create the big embranchements? Until the idea is clarified, there are great risks in deducing anything from it.
