The argument between those who accept blind evolution and those who accept intelligent design is usually carried out on scientific grounds.  Thus, the intelligent design advocates have cleverly managed to bring the debate to the home territory of the blind evolution advocates in an attempt to put them on the defensive.  (Whether there arguments there are good or bad is not a subject for this discussion.)  Perhaps the tables should be turned: argue on religious grounds.  I believe that, in a Christian world-view there are strong arguments against intelligent design because of what it tells us about God.  Basically, the issue that must be addressed is "Why did God do such a lousy job?"
 

The intelligent design advocates range from
     (a) those who believe there was practically no evolution    through
     (b) those who believe God has pushed evolution in certain directions    to
     (c) those who believe God simply started things and evolution ran on its own.
The last group are actually blind evolutionists.  They may disagree on the origin of the universe or how life began, but these are separate questions from evolution.  Still, they must deal with the question of why God did not intervene in evolution and so arguments related to (b) may be relevant.
 

Let's begin with (a), the case of practically no evolution.  Among the questions that need to be answered are
          Why are there disease organisms?
          Why are there bad genes that cause diseases?
          Why are human beings so poorly designed for upright posture?
Questions for (b), directed evolutionists, are also questions for people in the first category but not necessarily conversely.  Some of the design flaws could certainly have been avoided.  To cite just one example, consider the structure of the eye.  Because of the placement of blood vessels and the retina, various problems such as macular degeneration arise.  This is certainly avoidable with better placement as the eye of the octopus shows.  A simple evolutionary push could have led to an improved design for eyes that would reduce the chances of blindness in old age.  Perhaps God could have intervened to prevent the evolution of some disease organisms or bad genes, but one could argue that this is unreasonable if we want to have evolution.  In that case, why didn't God avoid these problems by sidestepping the whole process of evolution and just designing the whole biosphere?  
 

Obvious answers to these questions are "vindicitiveness for what happened in the Garden of Eden" and "limited competence in the design of universes".  Of course one can simply say that God is beyond us and we cannot expect to understand His motives but we should trust Him.  My answer to such a god is the same answer I would give to someone who is torturing me while telling me I should trust him.