No, it doesn't. Behe himself admitted as much in the Dover trial: the appearance of design does not equate being designed. Natural processes can result in things appearing designed. And I can point to well-respected scientists that argue for panspermia - that doesn't make that true either. Regardless, the origin of life is a different topic altogether from the evolution of life. If you think it is more statistically probable that a sentient something for which there is no actual evidence created the universe and life from nothing, then go for it. Maybe the Titans did do it but until I see evidence of their existence they remain as real to me as Santa Claus. You're also further complicating matters. Now not only do we need to figure out how that sentient being created life but we also have to find evidence for that sentient being. Maybe you should read Behe's works and testimony, he clearly does - he clearly does not hold the impenetrable genera boundary that you do. But there is a cogent explanation. Our understanding of genetics is not what it used to be. But mutations in a body plan gene or genetic switch can cause dramatic changes in very few generations. Keep in mind that genera and other taxonomic categories are, as Richard Dawkins says, a "convenient fiction". They help us categorize a continuum into manageable groups based on likely ancestry. Using our modern understanding of genetics, can you come up with a solution using mutations in genetic switches or body plan genes that could give a testable hypothesis? That would be very interesting research to engage in - to examine the DNA of such animals to see where the genetic differences lie that might cause this phenomenon. But just because we don't know it now doesn't mean we will never know, nor that we should just throw in the towel and argue that something(s) for which we have no evidence did it. But we can hypothesize HOW based on our modern understanding of genetics. Whether those hypotheses turn out correct or not is to be determined. The biblical account is a very poor predictor of the historical record prior to the 9th or 10th centuries BCE (in fact, it is virtually useless and has simply delayed accepting what the archaeological and historical records demonstrate). As such, there is absolutely no reason to assume the biblical creation stories are reliable or historically accurate. Are they useful as a reflection of the beliefs of the people at the time they were written, therefore informing us of their cultural worldview? Absolutely! Do they reflect what actually happened? There is no logical reason to assume so. Just because some people believe those (conflicting) stories to be true does not make them true. Unlike biblical literalists, scientists are not claiming to be inerrant.