ok. I looked it up. LOL
My point is that there is no solid argument for neither theory. If we are going to seat and argue about the "intelligence" or lack thereof that you can see in nature and the universe, then you have to consider every option.
If there is no design... then you can tell, as you have pointed out, how many things are wrong with the universe.
If there is design and if such was carried out by a super powerful all knowing God, then why do we think we can attempt to explain it? Every argument we bring forth can be dismissed, because we can assume that someone so smart can always top whatever we think is better.
If we think it would have been better if our testicles were inside, someone says they need to be outside, but then why did God not come up with a reproductive aparatus that does not require cooling. Someone else may argue that not even that is intelligent enough. Why just not create a being that does not require a reproductive system and just give men the power to reproduce some other how that did not require testicles. Why give men a digestive system that requires to be cleansed and all that. Might as well have made a being made of energy that does not require eating or drinking or anything. Why would a God so smart bother in creating something that can be corrupted to begin with.
I think nature speaks for itself and I think that this division between creationism and evolutionism is at the root of the discord. Simply because for the creationist, nature with its complexity and man's inability to explain it all, is the only recourse they have. This is the only way they can cause a division.
As a race, we would be much more successful at trying to bridge the gap between creation and evolution than trying to prove/disprove either one individually.