Help me understand Intelligent Design

Hi RAZD, Out of curiousity, which IC has been observed to evolve?But my bigger question regards the IC systems being explained in evolutionary steps.What I've read so far has been as follows:IDers: Organism {O_z} has a structure or process {SOP_z} that is IC.
Evos: {O_a} has a simpler but related {SOP_a}. I can imagine this small change to {SOP_a} giving us {SOP_b}...and so forth until we reach {SOP_z}. Ta-da! It isn't IC after all.But, for any of the proposed ICs and proposed evolutionary steps going from {SOP_a} to {SOP_z}, has a step-by-step been worked out for which DNA mutations would have to occur and the order in which they would have to occur to go from {SOP_a} to {SOP_z} -- forgetting the difficulty of whether an evolutionary line can even be thought to exist from {O_a} to {O_z} -- and forgetting the difficulty of where and how did the DNA/RNA structures and processes come from in the first place.I have never seen the step-by-steps treated in a molecular way, but always wondered whether such models existed.--Jason

I the eiffel tower pic is at least circumstantial evidence of ID.

Hi Nuggin, It almost sounds like you're saying that the evisioned step-by-steps are on equal par with either conjecture or faith -- as opposed to fact-based science.Are you saying that?--Jason

Nuggin,Rephrased, my question could be stated: "Are current evo arguments against IC systems scientifically based?" I really don't see how the Bible fits into this discussion at all.It appears to me that when IDers (not to be confused with YECers) put forth an example of an IC system, evos appear to "defeat" such examples -- SFAICT -- with nothing but imaginings.So far, you've only strengthened that notion.--Jason