[naive]

I reject this study, it seems heavily biased. 12 month year olds reacting to a fancy ball means they believe god? Yeah right. Six year olds aren't already indoctrinated in religion? Yeah right. To top it off, the questions are loaded. Asking a six year old "Why did the first bird exist" implies that there is in fact a known reason, and they want to get it "right" so they make one up. If they are creative and simply list a reason that they like birds, you can't say that it is proof of their belief in intelligent design because they listed a positive trait about something. All it means is they like birds singing, and have said the reason in which they like birds presuming that if birds had a reason to exist (implied in the question), it would be a positive one they enjoy. 


Also, presuming the infant ball trick wasn't just a bullshit study, lets think about what it would really mean. It has shown that if you create a complex man made system, and show it to an ignorant enough subject, they will believe it was god. If I were to agree to the results of this part of the study even, it seems like it would be giving even more credibility to the argument that people falsely believe in "creationism" and simply revert to such an argument once any system becomes sufficiently complex.