Levels of genetic defects: support Intelligent Design or Evolutionary Theories?

A leading American scholar of biology, Prof Francisco Ayala, plans to tell the conference that the so-called theory of intelligent design, proposed by Creationists, is flawed.
"The design of organisms is not what would be expected from an intelligent engineer, but imperfect and worse," he said.
"Defects, dysfunctions, oddities, waste and cruelty pervade the living world". -- BBC 3/3/2009

Here is another example of begging the question. If you asked Intelligent Design theorists, they would have a perfectly reasonable answer as to how their theory fits the current level of "defects, dysfunctions [sic], oddities, waste and cruelty". An original design that has degraded over time is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or put another way about 1800 years before the Second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated by Rudolf Clausius in 1850: in Romans 8:20-21 Paul writes "the creation was subject to bondage to decay"; or as was written down by Moses over 3000 years before Clausius, "dying you shall die... cursed is the ground because of you."

So to the contrary of what Francisco Ayala asserts, Intelligent Design theory accounts for that evidence that Darwinian and modern evolutionary theory cannot account for: information rich systems. Add to that the Biblical account of both Creation and the Fall where the universe is under a curse because of sin, the ensuing genetic defects and entropy, and the defects are perfectly accounted for.

For evolutionary theory, random mutation plus natural selection must be able to account for a gain of useful genetic information, but it statistically cannot. Mutations are almost always detrimental; these do not create new genetic information, but instead degraded information, that is, information loss. The robustness of the original design means that the creature can still function even with the degraded level of their genetic information.

The evidence in the world shows original designs that have degenerated, not a gradual development of new species. For example, even on a micro-evolutionary scale, different types of dogs are due to a loss of genetic information among distinct population groups rather than a gain by those isolated groups. The same can be said for Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands.