Fallible Design

The basic concept of intelligent design comes in two parts and is as simple as it is satisfying for those unwilling to think deeply about the natural world, science, or the nature of religion. 1) Nature is so perfectly integrated that it must have been designed just as we see it. 2) While some aspects of nature might have changed (evolved) over time, others are so complex that they must always have existed in the form we find them in today, and must have been created by an "intelligent designer".

This part can be largely attributed to Michael Behe (Lehigh University), who claims that certain biochemical processes are "irreducibly complex". They involve multiple proteins, and without any one of them the overall pathway would not work. Like the good old ... eye.
It is quite needless to say that both parts of ID are spectacularly wrong, but it is not a bad thing to preach to the choir every now and then. The choir can enjoy reading about the wonders of biology and human stupidity. Enfin. A notably elegant ID rebuttal appeared recently in PNAS. In “Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome” John Avise (University of California) provides entertaining examples of the human genomes incredible imperfection.