What I don't get is why people can't reconcile these two seemingly disparate terms. There is a great deal of evidence of life adapting to changes in the environment. Humans in different areas of the world, such as artic vs. equitorial, have important and subtle differences in physiology to help them survive. Think of what happened to the variety of life in Africa when the Sahara slowly became a desert (it used to be covered with water.)
Let's not forget plate techtonics (as the recent floods reminded us are still very much in play.) Plant and fossil records show that where the plates used to meet (i.e. Pangea), modern-day organisms from those same areas share remarkable similiarities, despite now being millions of miles apart. Of course, Austriala is almost an island unto itself in this regard (
), having been separated from the other continents for a greater period of time, and having a wider range of animals with very unique characteristics (i.e. marsupials.)What people seem to miss is, regardless of whatever the "intelligent design" might have been, it is always affected by outside forces - i.e. nature. Of course, seeing as how I think the design is to adapt, survive and propogate, I have no problems with how life has changed to suit its needs. Someone who thinks there is a "higher purpose" to life might have a little more difficulty reconciling these ideas.
As to your other points, here's some fun reading:
order versus complexity. I loved the distinction made here. Excellent stuff.
types of entropy.