Not sure if I'm missing something here

But it sounds like the argument goes, 'it can't be intelligently designed because looking at this thing here: it makes absolutely no sense.'

If that's what the argument is saying, then the very same thing applies to many human designs as well. It's not always (if even often) that the best designs gain dominance in the consumer market.

Some examples:

Beta VCR's made a whole lot more sense than the VHS system which came to dominate the market. VHS was always a disaster waiting to happen.

The old 1940's television broadcast protocol should never have been used for color. It's got to be one of the finikiest systems possible, relying on perfect timing, phase relationship and artificial reconstruction of missing ingredients. It's still being used in analog televisions. Any objective outsider looking at the system would shake his head in wonderment and ask, "Why the HECK did they ever design such a ridiculous system?!?"

The old 2 cylinder steam locomotives produced the same equivalent power as an 8 cylinder internal combustion engine! They could because they had no intake, compression or exhaust strokes. Thus, they produced a power stroke on each half revolution on both sides of the piston. Where the internal combustion engine is (normally) 4 stroke, the steam engine was half stroke. Utilizing modern technology, a new steam engine could drastically improve efficiency and fuel economy but it's not being done. This makes no sense but ......... it's by design!~

Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it wasn't designed that way.

-Vince