The "bad design" argument is an amusing one. The more we study the natural world, especially biology, the more we realise just how amazing a job God did. Yet still, the argument persists. Ironically, the things Evolutionists say are badly designed are often used as a model for our own designs. The recently emerging field of biomimetics, as the name suggests, is the art of copying biological designs and implementing them into our own technology.
In other words, when it's convenient, Evolutionists admit that natural design is so good, it's worth imitating. When it's not convenient, they are overly critical. That includes being overly critical of our own bodies. See, for example, this article, where I point out that Richard Dawkins believes the human eye is "wired backwards", and even suggests that cephalopods have better design in their eyes. And yet, there is not a single part of Dawkins' body that he would be willing to replace with that of another animal, or with any human design (at least, not unless something horrible happens to the existing part).
Talk is cheap, but you will never see Evolutionists put their money where their mouths are. Biomimetics, whether scientists admit it or not, is a huge compliment to God, and a subliminal admission that Evolution has no legs to stand on.