[Bonaparte]

The tacit assumption (and central fallacy) of Ayala's criticism of ID is that God would only design us in conformity with our purposes and our convenience. In other words, God forgot to consult us before he proceeded to create us. Ayala is surely aware that no human invention is ever perfect, ie. it is always a trade-off. So why would he presume to give God instruction in what constitutes "perfect" design -- Ayala has no idea what perfection actually would look like or how it would play out in the real world that we actually live in. This "perfection" is in truth nothing but fantasy. It can't even be found in the designs of nature which consistently dwarf our own. In the real world, it is enough that a thing simply works.

[Junior]

But you would have thought God would've come up with a better design for such things as the back (an injury-prone compromise between the horizontal spine of other animals and one geared for an efficient upright stance) or for the eye (where the optic nerve blocks part of our field of vision).