Yeah.  The prostate is always going to get cancer. 

When debating design

-Do not go for the "poor design" aspect, you end up getting muddled in pointless issues, and really, from a teleological standpoint, the theist is trying and failing to make the point that such things as biological engines display order and purpose, and hence need design behind them. This is false because it dichotomizes the situation and begs the question. Focus on the facts, don't focus on the notion of poor design.

The bifurcation occurs because the argument rests on the false dichotomy that “if not God, then chance”. This is fallacious because there is a third alternative (hence, we have a triconditional premise, which means that bifurcation is fallacious). That third alternative is natural process, which is not random, which is guided by the laws of physics and chemistry and such, but has no conscious will behind it. The bifurcation occurs because the theist makes the unjustified assertion that conscious will (ie a “mind” such as “the mind of God”) is necessary to create the order we see around us because it cannot be random. While it is true it cannot be random, this does not necessarily imply that it must have conscious guidance, because that fallaciously implies that we have a dichotomy between “conscious will” and “randomness”. In reality, we have unconscious, but certainly not random, processes which form the order we see. The process of biological evolution, for example, is blind-guided. But it is most certainly the absolute and precise opposite of randomness. This is true of vast numbers of natural processes which explain why things are the way they are, from star formation and cycles to geological columns . Everything down to the quantum level and up to the macrocosmic scale is governed by sets of physical and chemical laws which have no consciousness behind them, but still produce complex Order. In reality, the natural processes which do produce the order we see around us are extremely complex and anything but random. They are much, much more capable of producing natural order and complexity than we are at producing artificial complexity.

I admit, this one is quite instinctual. Since we are conscious entities, we tend to have some confirmation bias on the necessity of consciousness for anything to occur which is not random. In reality, this is not the case (and it just begs the question anyway). The problem is that we are used to the notion that only conscious entities may produce complexities, because that is what we do (this is why the unusually dim may compare natural structures and order to our artificially generated devices such as watches as per Paley). Hence, we tend to fallaciously conflate “not conscious” with “random”. This is a bifurcation which is false.

Note:

Always, also, it may be well to bear in mind that by the word “creation” the zoologist means “a process he knows not what”. He amplifies this idea by adding that when such cases as that of the Red Grouse are enumerated by the zoologists as evidence of the distinct creation of birds for such islands, he chiefly expresses that he knows not how the Red Grouse came to be there, and there exclusively; signifying also, by this mode of expressing such ignorance, his belief that both the bird and the islands owe their origin to a first great Creative Cause’.

-Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

life as a system is immensely complex, intricate and beautiful, and none are in a better position to testify this than those who study it (as I). It is tempting to attribute this complex intricacy to design, to a loving creator who assembles and fashions the parts like a watchmaker a la Paley. It is thusly tempting to compare the intricacy of life to the intricacy of systems that we humans assemble, such as watches, or perhaps (in today’s world) complex electronics.

However, not only are these anologies false, but the argument which underlies them phenomenally bad. That we know that such devices as I have listed are designed is for an obvious reason, namely- we designed them, does not allow us to conclude that biological systems must undergo the same criterion, because biological systems by definition have a very special set of attributes which allows them to generate complex intricacies from simple origins. In other words, when examining an object, our question should not depend on the criterion of the complexity of the object in question, perhaps measured by the primitive notion of how many “parts” it has or how they fit together, but rather, can it come about through natural process? With our devices, the answer is no. But for biological engines, the answer is yes. This is where the insurmountable problems solved by the 19^th century Victorian naturalists aboard the Beagle in a single stroke, comes into play.

Being that we have the intrinsic oddity of comparing biological engines to our own devices, it logically follows, being that we were the designers of the objects in question to which we are comparing biological engines, that we set up this false dichotomy whereby if the object in question was not designed, than the only alternative by which it may have come about is chance. By chance we simply mean a process of randomness which simply appears to have no governing law, whose system dynamics are simply chaotic and random, and that the complex structures of biology in question could have coalesced through such a process is absurd, hence we are left with the alternative of design. Yet this alternative is, I would say, equally phenomenally bad as an explanation, because of the argumentum ad ignoratium it poses (as Darwin pointed out in the above quote). There is a third option.

Biological structures began in the simplest of origins and developed into all the fantastic structures of complexity and intricacy we see around us via a process of immensely complex natural law and selection, a process which is governed by not chance, but rather strict and inherent rules which have so many variables yet the underlying principles of which are so simple and so easy to grasp that Darwin and his ilk on the Beagle must surely have been astonished at the stroke of simplicity with which they solved the problem of how life came to be, the process of evolution.

Science is a naturalist pursuit, because the whole objective of science is to explain mechanisms by which things may occur, and hence, the postulation of something for which we can derive no mechanism is inheretly absurd from a scientific standpoint. When we come across a problem that we haven’t seen before, we do not insist upon encountering such problems that the notion in question must be attributable to a deity.

But a posteriori arguments for the existence of God, of which the subset in question is "scientific" proof of God offer us no such standards. Rather, such "proofs" offer us arguments from ignorance, substituted with deus ex machina, whereby the "problem" was usually made up by the person attempting to establish "proof" of God. When we invoke this entity, hence, we cannot explain anything, since there is no epistemology behind it, we cannot offer any content to our solution. An ID proponent cannot explain, for example, the precise mechanisms by which God designs biological structures. A genuine scientific theory requires that the conjecture be more than conjecture, it has to included mechanism, the theory of the precise mechanisms by which such observed phenomenon occur. In science, this is a necessary practice. Certain so-called "scientific" arguments for God (the teleological a posteriori set) attempt to postulate this entity as an explanation to things we already have explanations for (such as apparently "designed' biological structure). Others appeal to holes in our scientific understanding where we do not have theories in place to explain such phenomenon, such as the origin of life.
Regardless of whether the argument is factual falsehood or argument from ignorance, the fact of the matter is that as a solution, no more content than the stubbornly repeated phrase "Goddidit" may be offered, which disqualifies the notion of "God" as a possible scientific idea, since we are required, for the formation of theory, to go into detail of the mechanism by which such phenomenon may occur. This is the definition of science, and since those who postulate the deus ex machina derived from a posteriori observations can give no explanations whatsoever regarding further inquiry into their solution...it can be dismissed out of hand, since it has no actual content to it. Were a scientific theory to arise which explained the Origin of biological life on Earth, it would, to be a theory, necessitate going into detail over the mechanism by which this process occured (by defnition), but being that they rely solely on deus ex machina derived from arguments from ignorance, those who propogate a posteriori arguments for God can never offer us possible mechanisms, and hence, cannot be scientific, QED.