Glad Intelligent Design lost, but sad Evolution won

Saw the program on Nova about a court case in the US in which proponents of Intelligent Design ("ID") were pitted against those who argued in favor of evolution. The apparent objective of the case was to determine if ID was fit to be presented in Dover Schools in the Science curriculum.

In the decision, ID was dismissed by the court as an offshoot of religion with no grounding in science.

I think ID is handicapped by its grounding in the Christian faith which has indefensible illogical claims such as the creation of the Earth in one day and the existence of the heavens as a "place somewhere in the clouds".

So the defeat of ID in this case seems logical and appropriate. However, the claims of the Evolution camp are also not on a solid foundation. Here are my counter-arguments against Evolution and the Darwin-supporting presentation on Nova's website:

1. To Niles Eldredge's claim that "nothing has been learned since Darwin which contravenes Evolution", here is a simple statement: Evolution is contrary to the Law of Entropy which states that nature when left to itself shows increasing chaos or disorder. Evolution claims a progressive improvement - like primitive hearts in lower animals (like cockroaches where the venous and arterial blood mix) to advanced hearts in humans (where there is no mixing) - which runs contrary to the Law of Entropy, a foundation law in physics.

2. As for adjustments within a species - like the beak-size changes in Geospiza fortis - that is explainable by simple genetical inheritance from fitter individuals, like North America being populated by more whites than Native Americans circa 2000 A.D. The whites from Europe won and the natives lost. You don't have to subscribe to the evolution of species to explain that.

3. Just like one needs to dissociate ID from the illogical statements in the Bible, one must to separate Evolution from the tried-and-proven science of genetics which correctly explains things like how genes turning on and off give rise to cell specialization. It is a fallacy to decorate Evolution with the crystal-clear truth of genetic science which can be verified in the lab. Evolution has no automatic logical place in embryology.

4. The claim that "All animals including humans descend from a common ancestor" is very weak if it is based on identification of visual similarities between man and ape or between the similar gene sequences between yeast and the human being. Using the same evidence, one could plausibly argue that the similarities are like looking at different paintings from the same painter - some simple ones and other complex ones. One could argue that the similarities just show the signature style of the same unique painter, not that one led to the other.

5. The other major flaw with Evolution is that it does not explain why many of the old "primitive models" still survive, and do not go extinct by themselves completely when there are better ("more evolved") versions. Why does the ape survive if the human being is a much evolved (improved) version of the ape? Why do the yeast and bacteria survive to date when much more advanced versions are there to inhabit the earth?

A plausible non-evolutionary answer to the question can be that the "primitive models" or "simple paintings" like apes and yeast exist because there is a place for them in the inter-dependent world of nature and the food chain. That may be why a creator created them in the first place and It (the intelligent creator) is the intervention required to stay consistent with the Law of Entropy. This seems perfectly logical at least more so than Evolution (which is a alternative theory), even if it sounds sacrilegious to popular scientific belief today.