How is this not correct reasoning? After all, the one and only evidence of design put forth by ID proponents is "It's obvious when you see it." Since the evidence of design is that you know it when you see it, it is also obvious that you know shoddy design when you see it. It's also obvious that you know a kludge when you see it, as in a computer program that has had its features extended and bloated by adding functions one by one, rather than by designing from scratch.
Life looks more like Windows than Linux, so to speak.
Slight question-begging here, apparently...
1) Designed by whom, for what purpose?
2) And do we know the details of what tradeoffs were made in the design process?
Remember the old adage "Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two."
3) Do we know the original conditions for which the designs were made, or how much present conditions differ from those for which the original designs were made?
4) Do we know there has been no tampering with the designs (blueprints), or tampering or kludges in (re)production?
There is apparently a difference between the YEC "God made everything exactly like it is now" and ID (God gave the mechanism of the universe a push and watched it go...) or (We are an experiment of space aliens (say lab mice, "42"), and Darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium.
While some of these ideas have far more predictive capability than others, some are more humorous (intentionally or not), and so on, oversimplifications and strawmen used in arguments are generally not good ideas, regardless of the target.
They tend to promote ill-will and to engender further unclear thinking, or habits of intellectual laziness.
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: Windoze was apparently designed to make reams of money, not to be easy to keep free of viruses or spyware. It's done that job very well. UNIX was --well, who knows? But it sure worked good on Cray and other high-end machines. That's why I started with the thoughts on "designed by whom, and for what purpose"...
Just stirring the pot...