I.D can explain more of the observed facts evolution can: how evidence works.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. I'm afraid that's a complete non-sequitur; I think you may have misunderstood.

"Is this theory compatible with the observable evidence" means "If this were true, would things inevitably look different to the way they are".

An omnipotent being could choose to design a universe exactly like the one we now live it, therefore it is compatible with the observable evidence.

Are you adding an extra double-negative, and arguing about whether the *non*existence of a designer is *in*compatible with the observable evidence? In that case the non-observability of the designer would be relevant, and indeed the non-existence of a designer is fully compatible with the observable evidence.

But the existence of an unobservable designer is also fully compatible with that evidence. The furthest we can legitimately go in rejecting it is to quote Laplace and say "I have no need of that hypothesis" - which is what my point about parsimoniousness was.