Not a challenge, but a legitimate attempt to understand: Does the ID theory hold that what we may see as deformities or flaws are not really flaws at all, but merely a means to instruct us in our limitations?
That is fine-- I don't see it as a challenge.
I think deformities could be reasonably seen as a challenge to our senses of order. I am not saying that ID must maintain this as THE interpretation. It does seem that ID has this as a stronger interpretive possibility than secular Darwinism.
I also think that organisms could be too complex for randomness and produce 'errors' at the same time. I do not see the deformities as competitive with an ID viewpoint.
My grudge in this discussion is not whether ID is true but rather why must it be excluded from scientific discussions. Non-religious scientists such as Behe have come to the conclusion that complex organisms cannot be reasonably explained as being byproducts of conventional evolutionary processes. This seems like a fair scientific hypothesis.
Religious bigotry (not necessarily on your part) masquerades as a sincere conern over scientific integrity. If we read TS Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions, it is apparent that theories also evolve-- but classic darwinism seems completely unwilling to suffer through challenges.