It seems to me that the argument for Intelligent Design hinges on the lack of belief in both randomness and mutation (evolution). The problem with said argument is as I have said before that you have to make a huge assumption with no credible and direct evidence of a designer.
If we use nature as evidence then we must include an aspect of nature that is ignored by believers in Intelligent Design. Take viruses.
We are constantly attacked by viruses. Our immune system tries to cope with these attacks, Our weakness as a species is that we do not evolve fast enough. Viruses mutate (evolve) very quickly because their life cycle is very short. Thus their generations are numerous compared to our own. We have to boost our immune system by infecting our bodies with small doses of the virus causing our bodies to build up antibodies to that specific virus. Essentially jump-starting our own mutation (evolution) process.
If there was an intelligent designer, you would think that he/she/it would have compensated for this flaw. If the universe is indeed in perfect order there would be no need for the mutations (evolution), but that is not the case. Evolution (mutations) happened continuously to adapt to various environments.
Of course, evolution isn't the explanation for the onset for everything, only for the variety, but it does point to the flaw in the very idea of Intelligent Design.
Randomness occurs in the mutation of viruses. A particular strain will be initially killed by inoculation and the antibodies in our body, but not fast enough to completely irradicate the virus. The virus mutates at such a rapid pace that some parts of it finally mutate to a point of coping with the antibodies attacking it. Thus the chemical war goes on. Antibiotics are regrown over and over again, force mutated to cope with the changing viruses.