There's a striking parallel between arguments for intelligent design and arguments for linguistic nativism: Both are arguments from ignorance. In one instance, a supernatural creator is the explanatory placeholder; in the other, it's our supposed "innate endowment".
Here's Jerry Coyne on intelligent design:
"ID is unscientific, for it consists largely of untestable claims. How, for example, can we determine whether mutations were mere accidents in DNA replication or were willed into being by a creator? But we can still ask if there are adaptations that could not have been built by selection, and therefore require us to think of another mechanism. Advocates of ID have suggested several such adaptations, such as the bacterial flagellum... and the mechanism of blood clotting. [...] IDers argue that such traits, involving many parts that must cooperate for that trait to function at all, defy Darwinian explanation. Therefore, by default, they must have been designed by a supernatural agent. This is commonly called the "God of the gaps" argument, and it is an argument from ignorance. What it really says is that if we don't understand everything about how natural selection build a trait, that lack of understanding itself is evidence for supernatural creation." (2009, p. 139).
Compare this to the language mad-libs version:
"Linguistic nativism is unscientific, for it consists largely of untestable claims. Yet we can still ask if there are facets of language that could not have been learned, and therefore require us to think of another mechanism. Advocates of nativism have suggested several such puzzles, such as early patterns of nominal overregularization. Nativists argue that such phenomena defy a learning theoretic explanation. Therefore, by default, they must be specified by some innate developmental program. This is commonly called a "poverty of the stimulus" argument, and it is an argument from ignorance. What it really says is that if we don't understand everything about how learning can explain some phenomena, then that lack of understanding itself is evidence for nativism."