I didn't find it unsatisfactory at all. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't intend for the premise of my original question to be taken as having anything to do with perfection. For that matter, I didn't even intend near-perfection, but the opposite. There countless imperfections in the universe as we know it. I accept that.
What I was trying to get at with my question is how do those who support the ID concept reconcile inefficent design with their theory?
Take eyesight for example. We are designed in such a way that we need eyes to see. That being the case, why are so many of us born with a predisposition to myopia? Doesn't seem like any big deal for an intelligent designer to design eyes that work for the purpose intended. Same thing with teeth. And hair. Are we designed to be bald or to have hair on our head? Why create a design in which people (mostly men) are born with hair only to begin going bald in their 20's or 30's?
There are countless such examples, big and small. All the planets in our solar system rotate left to right (west to east) on their axes except Venus, which rotates the other way. From a design standpoint, why?
All planets revolving around their axes and stars (suns) have different lengths of day and year. That means there is no uniform way to calculate a day and a year in the universe. Why?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
You deny having a wish that the universe exist in a perfect state of grace. You say your expectations even fall well short of a universe existing in a state of near perfection, yet you express distress at its present state, and demand to know why it is not better. You must, then, consider the universe well below the level of good, and dwelling in such a dysfunctional state as to be verging on collapse.
I disagree that the state of the universe is that distressing. And even if my understanding of your disapproving view of the universe is overstated to some degree or another, it is obvious that we have gotten ourselves into the area of value judgments and matters of opinion, where sometimes discontents cannot be expressed properly or addressed precisely.
You’ve been given my understanding of the good, the perfect, and the truly awful of the universe, which I can only describe with analogies. And, you’ve pronounced it satisfactory. But, clearly, you’re unsatisfied. Is this surprising? We are talking about more than mere chipped liver. We have here, an intelligence light millenniums away from being adequate to create the universe, asking another, equally inadequate intelligence, why their concept of the perfect, or even of the good, doesn’t seem to match the reality of that universe. Our understanding is inadequate because we don’t know enough, and we aren’t intelligent enough. We can gain scarcely more than a mere glimmer by the use of analogy.
For the record: You’ve been laboring, as have a number of others, under the misapprehension that I am an advocate of ID. I am not. I find some of the science of ID’s better advocates falls into areas of interest to me, and I follow their product with interest. Speaking of which (ID’s better advocates), someone had earlier recommended Alamo-Girl to you, if you are genuinely interested in an ID resource. If you haven’t already, I recommend you pursue that referral. She’s top drawer.