I don't see it in terms of good and evil. If the word "intelligent" is paired with the word "design," then that conjures in my mind ideas of efficiency. It's that which I am trying to get to, not religious connotations.
If intelligent design is to be taught in schools as a an alternative scientific theory, I want to understand its underpinnings
Your original post characterizes these defects as "cruel"; that is a substitute for evil. The answer to why a designer would permit "cruelty" in his design is that he is either incompetent or malevolent.
If the word "intelligent" is paired with the word "design," then that conjures in my mind ideas of efficiency.
Birth defects (or defects of any kind for that matter) are obviously inefficient. The answer to why the designer would permit inefficiency is because he is either incompetent or malevolent.
It's that which I am trying to get to, not religious connotations.
The religious connotations are unavoidable. Only dissemblers claim that intelligent design is about anything other than deities.
If intelligent design is to be taught in schools as a an alternative scientific theory, I want to understand its underpinnings.
Oh, well if that's all you want then why didn't you say so? Here ya go!
Ahh . . . I wasn't aware there was an ID course to be taught. Is this a one-semester course? One term? What grade? Tenth? Eleventh? Or is it taught basic and advanced? Like in the fourth grade and then again in the ninth? What are the certification standards for teaching ID? How has certification come to arise right out of a standing start, so to speak? Have all the states already developed standards for the teaching of this course? Have the regional accreditation associations developed evaluation standards?