Intelligent design should not be respected as much as the theory of evolution

There is an intellectually, but sadly not politically, one-sided debate going on between those who believe that natural selection is the only theory of speciation that should be taught in schools and those who believe that intelligent design should be regarded as at least an alternative in the classroom. First, I will define natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which, over the course of generations, species change to adapt to the environment in which they reside. Creatures that possess favorable characteristics will reproduce, while creatures that do not will die before they can do so. If a horrific disease sweeps through a human population, only those immune to it will survive. These survivors will be the only ones to have children, who will, in all likelihood, possess the same immunity. After a few generations, this disease will be a memory. A terrible memory, but a memory nonetheless. Intelligent design contends, on the other hand, that the process of change between generations is hardly so simple as this. It holds that there is a supernatural force guiding the process, designing every important adaptation instead of selecting for it. I do not believe in intelligent design. This should have been made obvious by the disparity in length between my explanation of natural selection and intelligent design, but it must be said outright. One of the arguments for intelligent design is that life is simply too complicated to have been made through natural selection, an argument that I hold to be false. Life is, fundamentally, not complicated. It is very modular. Every visible living thing is a multicellular organism. It is made up of many, many incredibly small organisms that behave very predictably and simply. A human cell is no more complex than any amoeba. It possesses a cell membrane, DNA, a nucleus, and the means to transcribe the DNA into proteins. In fact, human macrophages move and even eat in much the same way as amoebas. They will manipulate and selectively destroy their intracellular matrices to extend parts of themselves to move around, and they will engulf smaller organisms in exactly the same way. And creatures in transitional periods between unicellular and multicellular states can be found all over the place. Slime molds, for example, are simply colonies of amoeba-like organisms that move as one mass to find food. This is what develops on dog vomit and spilt milk that is not mopped up. This transition from a unicellular to a multicellular state is very demonstrably possible. And, of course, there is the problem of evil adapted for this debate. If there is a "force" or a designer with the power to mold life to its whims, why is life imperfect? Why are there genetic flaws? Why do our air and our food both go in the same hole? Why are the human vagina and anus so close together that before the advent of health care, many women would get infected by their own bodily fluids when giving birth? An intelligent designer capable of shaping the direction of speciation would have to be intelligent indeed, and yet there are glaring "design" flaws. And why would such a powerful, (almost?) supernatural being stop at life? Why would it create imperfect living machines while leaving the basic laws of physics intact? Why does the force that presumably creates and shapes life not levitate rocks or create golden staircases to the moon? This universe is far too simple and mathematically consistent to tolerate something as grandiose as a euphemistic god. Intelligent design is not a credible theory. It is not falsifiable, and it is therefore intellectually dishonest, even cowardly, to promote it. Its premises are unsound, and the reasons it holds for abandoning evolution are not compelling.