ID vs Evolution

Evolution does not disprove the idea of an intelligent designer of the universe, and an intelligent designer doesn't rule out evolution.

There's a concept in computing known as "genetic algorithms" which arises from the recognition that, no matter how smart we think we are, there are certain systems that are simply too complicated for us to think our way through them to a solution, such as a neural network, which is a sort of simulation of a brain. 

So what a genetic algorithm does, in the case of neural nets, is quickly find a solution to a complex problem.

You start with criteria for an optimum solution, so you know what you're working towards.

Then you come up with a way to test for that solution, by subjecting the neural nets to a challenge, or series of challenges. The closer the neural net comes to approaching the ideal solution, the higher the score you assign to it. 

Then you generate the neural nets. In the first iteration, completely at random.

After subjecting the collection of nets to the test, the highest scoring nets are kept, the rest are culled.

The survivors are then "bred" or combined to produce child networks, and a certain percentage of the total collection are again randomly generated, or influence by randomness.

Repeat until you get something that works. 

Now if there is an intelligent creator behind all of this, maybe it recognized that there were things beyond its capacity to hold in its mind, and so it set up the starting conditions for this experiment to approach some sort of final goal, a solution to a problem it couldn't solve, and it came up with this reality as a way of running that experiment.

Maybe that final goal is the production of consciousness which can completely comprehend and commune with that creator. 

Science can't prove the existence of an intelligent creator, neither can it conclusively disprove it. All it can really do is disprove proposed characteristics of what that creator may or may not be. 

Until such time as a means of conclusively proving or disproving all possible manifestations of such a guiding or creating intelligence, the possibility MUST remain open, according to the rigor of scientific discipline. 

So the existence of "God" is an untested, untestable hypothesis, or if we're feeling generous, a theory.

There may be something to the idea of fractals or a fractal-like construct being involved. At the lowest possible level of reality, we've discovered four basic forces, the weak and strong nuclear reaction, electromagnetism, and gravity. 

As coincidence would have it, we've also discovered four basic building blocks in human DNA, which we call adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C),guanine (G) and thymine (T).

And then it gets weird, because most mystical traditions that have arisen include the idea of four elements, directions, winds, rivers, as allegories for the fundamental substance of existence. And in most cases, those are further grouped into a simple duality, with two of the four in each of the two groups.

The most obvious and well-known example of this is the tai-chi tu, or "ying yang" symbol, which elegantly describes the four fundamental forces, and informs the I-ching, which describes the 64 possible unique combinations of those four forces (when you consider that two of the forces are interpreted as transitional or "moving" from one state to another).

Not that it's much better than any other similar system, but it's certainly the most systematically disciplined. 

Now, whether this is a result of some sort of divine intelligence communicating with its creation, or simply a natural result or function dependent upon the way the human mind works, who knows? It, as of yet, can neither be proven nor dis-proven in any but the most superficial ways. 

So this myth remains "Plausible" and I can't tell you whether or not an intelligent designer exists.