Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted.

The trap does not work until all the parts were there. The system itself doesn't work until you fit all of them together.

The first point one has to get straight in discussions like this, is that ID is not the opposite of evolution. Rather, it is the opposite of Darwinism, which says life evolved by an utterly unguided, undirected mechanism. If god directed the process of evolution, or rigged the universe to produce complex life, then that is not Darwinism - it is intelligent design.

The basic structure of proteins is quite simple: they are formed by hooking together in a chain discrete subunits called amino acids.

The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself - not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.

The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.

As can be seen even by this limited number of examples proteins carry out amazingly diverse functions.