Aussie no IDea story

Defence of evolution by other theologians is a thorny conundrum. Do you applaud that they can see the plausibility of one thing yet ignore their inconsistencies in every other?
Since they MUST have a place for God in their logic, they end up in tortured prose trying to prove the unprovable. Take this sentence from the first paragraph which sets up the rest of the story:

Yet intelligent design is based on a misunderstanding of God's relationship to creation.

This sets up a convenient straw man for the professor to destroy and never state the real issue. Evolution does not need a God, never has, never will. If he's lurking around somewhere touching all with his noodly appendages we can't prove it or disprove it and hence can ignore it since it has no effect.
If you choose to believe in a God, that's entirely your perogitive and good luck with that; the issue at hand is simply that belief is not needed and hence is irrelevent in the discussion.