A hypothetical/argument (it isn't either, exatly) of the following form easily reconciles intelligent design/evolution, and is exceptionally hard to twist to argue against either.

1) Elegance is a virtue.
2) God has all virtues.
3) If god created everything, he would do so elegantly.
4) It is more 'elegant' to design the mechanism of natural selection than to whole hog 'poof' everything into existance.

The problem is that the above cannot be tested or falsified. Such hypotheses can be interesting in terms of philosophy, but they have no predictive power, and thus fall outside the domain of science. Falsifiability is absolutely essential to scientific philosophy.

They also have no merits over an infinite number of comparable hypotheses. I could claim that a god hates elegance because it mocks its power, so it creates really complicated things as proof of its power. I could claim that it's much easier to whole-hog 'poof' everything into existence. Until you or I can propose tests of the validity of the hypotheses, there is no reason to believe any of them, if you use the scientific method as a way of organizing your thinking.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com