"If you want your God "scientifically explicable", you are actually reversing the relation."

Well, I don't want or not want a scientifically explicable god, I was thinking more along the lines of an intelligence that to us mere humans would be indistinguishable from what many would consider a god, so far beyond our comprehension might that being's powers be. What they would not be is supernatural in the traditional sense of the word.

"but I think it makes the point"

It doesn't, as it misses the point completely as it assumes the default position of there being a designer rather than a natural process.

"ie- common traits/body plans is evidence for a common designer"

Why? Tell me.

"the big gaps are acknowledged by most of you, but you all fall back on saying that we cant posit God."

You can't use gaps in our knowledge as evidence for the existence of god. You can posit the existence of god, but if you want to prove her existence scientifically then by all means do, but using scientific methods. Simple.