Bernard

As I explained earlier, I am very much a layman on this subject so I am sure you will understand my skipping the technical aspects of your interesting and informative post.

You write, “… it is NOT teleological l- it does not have an ultimate end in mind.”

Science does indeed hate the notion of teleology, particularly when it comes to Evolution, but I see this as solely due to the necessarily restrictive nature of the Scientific Method. Science cannot disprove that Evolution is purposeful. Equally, I.D. cannot prove that it is. As I said before, when it comes to the question of Darwinism or I.D. (or, as I favour, a mix of the two) the jury is still out. IMO it just happens that a lot of people have already made up their mind about what the jury’s verdict will be, but I see nothing wrong with that.

You write, “If a real designer were planning life he (she, it?) would never have done it in such an inefficient way. For example, humans are bipedal (i.e. walk upright) to enable to do so our spinal column is bent in a curious shape and BTW has condemned us to be very susceptible to lower back pain. Any designer should have done better.”
You later continue, “people like Behe, Dembski, and Phillip Johnson make clear that the only acceptable "designer" is God (and the Christian God to boot) -- no superior aliens need apply for the post.”

But is this not simply a case of people anthropomorphising this Intelligence(and unnecessarily so, IMO)? The use of the term ‘designer’ implies an entity with human or human-like intelligence. But why does it have to be such? Is it not possible that this intelligence is some nebulous part of, say, the Earth’s biosphere? Rather like human intelligence is a phenomenon produced by a mass of atoms, compounds, etc. arranged in a particular way – i.e. our brain. IIRC, a British mathematician has mooted that when electronic circuits get down to a certain microscopic level they will will become rudimentarily intelligent. Perhaps we would all fair better if we were to let I.D. stand for Intelligent Darwinism in preference to Intelligent Designer.
BTW, and on a lighter note, if our here hypothetical Intelligent Designer were human-like, I could happily point out that even we very clever humans design things that turn out to be imperfect… As they used to say, “Contrary to legend, even a Rolls Royce breaks down.”

To close, I again thank you for your interesting and informative feedback. I value your not simply dismissing my posts on the grounds that they were written by a layman with a limited knowledge of Evolution and only a tentative view on the subject of I.D. I’m sure I am not the only person here to gain some better understanding of this complex subject from your erudite responses.
If knowing this is of any value to you, your posts have gotten me sufficiently interested in the "modern synthesis" to want to some when have a look at Richard Dawkins’s The Ancestor's Tale.
Meantime, I shall continue to think that the process of Evolution incorporates something more than mechanical, something intelligent.

MJT