"Why should a rat run, a bat fly and a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with the structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor. An engineer starting from scratch could design a better limb in each case."
Former Evolutionist Steven J. Gould
One of the arguments that evolutionists often put forth is that there are many poorly designed systems in life. This, they claim is evidence of evolution. Why? Because if God was the designer it would have been better, so the logical conclusion is, it must have evolved. Not only that, but often they will present an alternate design, or at least imply that someone else could easily re-design whatever system or structure they are complaining about. This is a very poor argument, and the fact that it seems to reoccur within evolutionary literature is a testament to the weakness of their scientific arguments for evolution.
Are we the ones that determine the standards of perfection? What makes a design better or worse? "Better" relative to what? Who decides what level of functionality is acceptable? What man made designs and plans for life have prototypes or have been tested and put in to use? Does augmenting life to fit our desires imply intelligent design or evolution? Do evolutionists know what a designer would design if a designer designed life?
Since life does not fit their preconception about what a creator would create, life must not have a designer.
Let's take this point by point
1. Is it true that if God created it, it would have been different?
The argument from bad design is based on how evolutionists define the character of God. Obviously, God would not have used DNA; he would have come up with alternate molecules capable of handling genetic codes as needed. Therefore DNA was not designed. Obviously God would not have used similar structures; he would have invented entirely new ones for each creature. So the fact that a bat flies with exquisite precision, a porpoise can live and navigate in water and we can translate thoughts in our heads to motions in our fingers and hit the right keys on the typewriter with a similar arrangement of bones is evidence that God would not have done it. The idea that similarity automatically means evolutionary relationship is a major blind spot in evolutionary thinking. There is no reason to assume that a creator would not use similar designs in different organisms.
2. Even bad designs require a designer.
Whether something has to be the product of intelligence has nothing to do with whether the design is good or bad. Both good and bad designs can have a designer. Many bad designs have come from very intelligent people. In fact many bad designs have been very successful, simply because nothing else is available. So finding a system in life that seems poorly designed is not evidence of evolution.