" ... (intelligent design/evolution) live together quite well in a thinking brain."

I can accept that...IF I remind myself that rationalization is one way a brain often thinks. We humans can use our complex language to make concepts 'fit' to suit our preconceptions. This is often called equivocation. Sometimes people *agree* on a term when none (or very few) of them have carefully defined exactly what they mean. (and obviously, careful definition can be an impediment to agreement: witness "folk".)
I would argue (Hi, Susan *grin*) that intelligent design & evolution don't get along very well without some genteel equivocation. IF one assumes that 'evolution' was one aspect of intelligent design... well...ummm... ok, but the big assumption is that there is any need to make them compatible. One is constantly being observed & explored... the other is merely a subjective opinion.



re: "The rule of 48".... the accepted 'facts' of science need to be checked now & then: just to look at what might have been overlooked or mis-measured.

http://www.livescience.com/32921-whats-normal-body-temperature.html