[Wolfstar]

We would all have to be very smart (smarter than any human) to know why these diseases exist.

With all due respect, I find it quite interesting that I am asking these questions in the context of intelligent design as a scientific theory, while most of the responses have ignored intelligent design and gone straight to religion.

[zeeba neighba]

Then perhaps you need to address the question to a control group who has no contamination from living in the world. Good luck with that. Plus then, you might have a real experiment.

[RightWhale]

Paley's arguement was published in 1800. Something purposely designed must have a designer. The question should be redirected to whether either we, life, or the universe has a perceptable purpose.

I would say that appears to be our job, to create purpose.

[dhs12345]

It is not religious to state that we mere humans don't know everything there is to know. And probably never will.

As a matter of fact, it is a bit arrogant to think that we do. There will always be things in nature that we will never fully understand. Of course, that doesn't mean don't try.

Accepting that fact is the first step in a fuller understanding of science. People thought they had the universe pegged beginning of last century. Bohrs theory of the atom, etc. The along came new and very strange theories that blew away our concept of reality. Time wasn't constant? Mass could become infinite? Matter is a wave and not a particle? Just by perceiving something, we changed it?

Just a guess, but I bet that science will continue to get stranger and stranger and become less provable -- example string theory.