Here is a question I have about intelligent design that I didn't see answered on the FAQ of your website http://www.creationism.org/
I am an architect, and I have some experience with designing things. I have for a long time wondered how creationists can call the design of the human body "intelligent". OK, I'll give you that eyeballs are pretty amazing, but there are serious flaws with how the human body is put together that really can be explained only by evolution, because they are so peculiar that not even a not-very-intelligent designer would have have put various human parts together so haphazardly.
For example, have you ever really thought about how bizarre and awkward it is to have sexual organs and the excretory organs in such close proximity? If I designed a house the way the human body were designed, the bedroom and the bathroom would be the same room. In fact, the bed would also be the toilet. It's disgusting and unsanitary and it can cause serious health problems (urinary tract infections come to mind).
As another example, and one that resonates personally with me because I am a woman, the "design" for pregnancy and childbirth is simply awful. Isn't there a better way to design women than to have, for the first 3,896 years of human existence, 1 in 7 women die in childbirth the first time they give birth (prior to the beginning of the twentieth century, back to 4004, when that kooky deity created everything there is for a mysterious reason known only to It)? You're telling me that the same deity who designed the eyeball couldn't think of a better way of getting an enormous baby out of a woman's abdomen? How about a zip lock closer like the ones on freezer bags? Or Velcro? The lowly kangaroo has a reproductive system I envy. Even with modern medical techniques, is it possible God really wants every woman who has undergone a vaginal birth to be unable to cough without peeing for the rest of her life?
Wouldn't an omnipotent and omniscient designer design a perfect body for humans, the pinnacle of Its creation? The implication of which is that mere humans should not be able to imagine a single improvement in form and/or function? And yet, although I'm an architect, not The Architect, even I can think of some obvious changes which would make life better. For example, if I had designed me, I'd have given myself a prehensile tail so that I could use to open the door when my arms are full of groceries, and I'd also be able to see on the infrared spectrum, so I could find the toilet in the dark.
And don't give me any of that "there's a mysterious reason we can't comprehend that we're so flawed". If you're coupling "intelligent" with "design", you have to judge the design on its intelligence, and accept reasonable criticism of said design. If you want to change the theory to "mysterious weird awful incomprehensible design", then I can't quibble with it, but "intelligent design"?
Give me a break, intelligent design my ass. And I mean that literally.
And don't get me started on the spine.