Design, Designers, and the problem of evil

I've been holding off on answering question #3 for fear that the answer is either too easy and I'm missing the point or impossible to answer and therefore stupid to attempt. Both of those things may be the case. I'm taking a shot anyway. Q #3: Obviously "evolutionists" have an agenda to spread their naturalistic philosophy (according to Phil Johnson, among others). Once you get rid of their desire to get God out of the picture, what do you have left? Once you accept through faith that God made the universe, there's no evidence from evolutionists that "demands a verdict." Hasn't Intelligent Design (ID) proved that evolution is wrong scientifically/empirically? >It might be helpful to first spell out what we mean by "design". You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but the definition of design is one of the two crucial points in the middle of this argument. There are two influential takes on the design argument that try to deal with both sides of the evidence fairly. One is promoted by Del Ratzsch, a physics professor at Calvin College; the other by (among others) Michael Ruse, History and Philosophy of Science prof. at Florida State. Both have attracted a large number and variety of followers. Ratzsche's position is based on a more nuanced understanding of Paley's early-1800s design argument. He basically lays out what it means for something to be designed:

1. "a pattern is an abstract structure which correlates in special ways to mind, or is mind correlative
2. a design is a deliberately intended or produced pattern
3. to be designed is to exemplify a design" (Nature, Design, and Science, 2001: 3).

Ratzche's definition of "designed" and "pattern" is basically the one agreed to by most ID people. That position can really be summed up as "it looks too complicated to be accidental, so it must be designed." Ruse's position is slightly more subtle. For him, there is a difference between what appears to be designed and what actually is designed. In his terms, this is a distinction between adaptedness (undesigned) and artifactuality (designed). Before you proclaim how silly this is, think about skipping stones. A flat, palm-sized stone that you could skip across a pond is not an artifact (until you use it)--it's a rock. A flat, palm-sized disk made out of stone is an artifact, whether you skip it or use it as a coaster. It's difficult to see exactly why, but we know the difference between something intentionally made by a human and something natural, raw, and unaltered. Ruse is saying even though the universe looks complex that it doesn't automatically mean that it was designed that way. Natural laws shaped the planets and stars and rocks. The argument is that natural selection acting upon variation in the organisms shaped the trees and the birds and the kangaroos. Fair enough, say Intelligent Design theorists, but then explain how natural selection formed things that seem obviously designed, like the eye and the circulatory system. Ruse and others would admit that those things are unfathomably complex, but not necessarily artifacts, not necessarily designed. Adaptation to the environment is extraordinarily powerful--life is a motivating factor for living things--and these things could have arisen through the combination of natural selection and accidents like mutations, population bottlenecks, inbreeding, etc. But the second point of the discussion--and this is the real crux of the issue, the thing that drove Darwin himself crazy--is much more challenging for both sides. IF the universe is designed and the complex characteristics of living things carefully, lovingly, and beautifully fashioned by God (or another Intelligent Designer, as the ID theorists would be quick to interject in their religiously non-confrontational and perhaps a bit wishy-washy sort of way), THEN why is the designing done so well on the one hand and so capriciously on the other? Why do you have killing and death in horrible ways in the animal kingdom? Why do you have parasites that serve no purpose other than to tear-up the body and mind? Why do some organisms exist (like poison ivy and tapeworms and mosquitoes, for instance) that serve no other purpose then to irritate other organisms? Why is there so much waste, so many imperfections, animals and plants born maimed or incapable of survival from the get-go? Why is there so much suffering and evil even in the natural world? The real question is the problem of evil question. That is what Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, Ernst Mayr, Carl Sagan, and all the rest really want to grasp. That is the question that ID (not to mention Creation Science) cannot possibly answer: if some things are so complex as to lead us to believe they are designed, why are they often designed to inflict pain or irritation or disease or death, and why are other things so poorly designed as to waste so much for so little gain? I would posit that this question of theodicy is really at the heart of most atheistic evolutionism, when it rears its head. So, doesn't that then leave us with two answers: either (1) there is no God and this is all a big joke (the confrontation position) or (2) the devil did it/God allows this pain to test us (the religion-and-science-don't-overlap position)? I'm not sure. I think there is a third answer that leans more heavily on the character of God in creation (the engagement position), but that will have to wait for another day. Before then, I want to hear from you. Especially those that disagree with this analysis. Or those that think they can come up with the best "solution" to the problem of "natural evil" and a "designed" universe.