Why do cave fish have nonfunctional eyes? That’s bad design for sure. You could impute it to the quirks of God, but isn’t it more parsimonious to conclude (and we know this independently from molecular data) that those fish evolved from fully-eyed fish that lived above the ground? Similarly, the recurrent laryngeal nerve, beloved of Dawkins and myself as a wonderful piece of evidence for evolution (see our books), is way longer than it need be—but that excessive length is completely understandable given the evolutionary history of that nerve, which once innervated the gills in our ancestors.
Over and over again, bad designs make sense as byproducts of evolution. They make no sense if you posit that they’re the product of a creator’s whim—UNLESS you think that creator’s whim was to fool us into thinking that life had evolved. And who wants to believe in a god like that?

Read the first eight pages of the introduction, which is a reasonably accurate, if derivative, sketch of Darwin’s life. The last 10 pages or so are devoted to some rather heavy-handed evangelism, which doesn’t really have anything to do with the history or content of the evolutionary sciences; read it or not as you please. But don’t waste your time with the middle section of the introduction, a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments, teeming with misinformation about the science of evolution, populated by legions of strawmen, and exhibiting what can be charitably described as muddled thinking.
For example, Comfort’s treatment of the human fossil record is painfully superficial, out of date, and erroneous. … He says, “Java Man [a Homo erectus], found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth.” Well, that was from a single site—excavated in the 1890s. What about the dozens of other sites where fossils of H. erectus are found, from China to Kenya to Georgia?

I have faith that college students are sharp enough to realize that Comfort’s take on Darwin and evolution is simply bananas.

As McInerny explains:

Similarly to a botanical collection, the differences between the variations of a “type” are illustrated by dissection, arrangement and exploration of important structures—from the whole organism, key generic structures (Sentences, Paragraphs, Subchapters, Chapters) and a comparative focus on comparable branches (first and last chapters).
By aging each structural component we can understand the temporal origins of each … and this codification shows the literary organism responding to the scientific, philosophical and cultural environmental change itself engineered. The sentences forming the ‘leaflets’ of the organism are of orange, senescent tones when they will be deleted in following editions. The green, growth tones are applied to those sentences that have life in the following edition. The tone of each color is determined by its age, in editions, to that point. Through these differences in coloration the simplicity in structure in the early stages of the organism’s life develops into a complex form, showing when the structures developed to its changing environment. Around the organisms the textual code is provided, showing the changes in the size of the organism, and where the senescence and growth is derived in that code. A series of re-arrangements of the organism focus on changes at each level of organization.

Any animal that spends appreciable time in the ocean should be able to extract oxygen from water via gills. Enlarging the lungs and moving a nostril to the back of the head is a poor work-around.

High-predation females invest more resources into current reproduction because a high rate of mortality, driven by predators, means these females may not get another chance to reproduce. Low-predation females, on the other hand, produce larger embryos because the larger babies are more competitive in the resource-limited environments typical of low-predation sites. Moreover, low-predation females produce fewer embryos not only because they have larger embryos but also because they invest fewer resources in current reproduction.

There’s also a second part to the experiment. The team took a group of guppies from part of the Yarra River that has predators and a group from a tributary that has no predators and put them in both sections of the Damier River. After four weeks, they checked back and found that the resident guppies from the first experiment—those that had already adapted to the local environment—were more likely to have survived than the newly transplanted guppies. In other words, the first set of guppies had developed a new, advantageous trait in a relatively short period of time. (Keep in mind that generations go much faster for guppies, which have a short lifespan, than for longer-lived species.)