I think it is a good point, Aaron. If the designer wanted an ecosystem, it would make little sense to create everything perfect.
If it were all about "imperfections" and no elaboration, then it would not necessarily take ID off the table. For an imperfect designer, imperfect designs are expected. For a perfect designer, maybe the "imperfections" really were part of the plan all along.
When we get into the details of imperfections, then I think the problems of ID run deeper.
Richard Dawkins made a video of a dissection of a giraffe, and you can find it on YouTube. Maybe this was also covered by Jerry Coyne in his book. In giraffes, there is a nerve that goes from the brain to the vocal chords, which would be expected to be only a few inches, but it goes all the way down and back up the neck, winding around an organ in the torso.
Here is that video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
The video shows the evolutionary explanation for such a thing--all mammals have that anomaly, and it supposedly goes all the way back to the fish ancestors.
The reason such imperfections are relevant is that those imperfections are addressed by the theory of evolution with enough explanatory power to make the theory conclusive.
But, it is not narrowly expected that the laryngeal nerve going all the way up and down the giraffe's neck is a purposeful imperfection or vulnerability. Certainly it is an imperfection, but there are such a large number of ways to have imperfections. If the imperfection of the nerve in giraffes was unique to giraffes, being shown in no other species of mammal in existence, then that could not be explained by common descent, at least not without incredible difficulty.
™ Version 4.2
