Perhaps, but: nobody thinks that the crappiness of design is a very good argument against design, do they? My experience is that this issue ONLY comes up after the creationist first argues that the construction of things in nature is so rip-roarin’, rootin’-tootin’ amazing, so filled with intelligence and wisdom (Halleluia, and sis-boom-bah!) that its sheer brilliance attests to the fact that it can only have come from Baal or one of his mates down at the pub. That’s the context. This silly argument is made, and then the response is sometimes given that the design is not so rootin’, and not so tootin’, as it is being said to be.
As a primary philosophical or evidentiary argument for evolutionary theory, this would fail in every possible way. But nobody thinks it succeeds in that role anyhow. It is simply a retort to a bad creationist argument; it arises in dialogue, by the processes of argumentation themselves, by the conventions of turn-taking in conversation. Creationist says “the character of living things is that they reflect the transcendent brilliance of Baal’s wisdom,” and the response is that if that’s so, Baal needs to take a few classes in how to design living things, because frankly, he’s crap at it.
So who is the source of the crappy theology in this argument? Not the biologist; it’s the creationist, supplying it on both sides. He supplies the crappy theology that says that nature reflects the masterful design of the creator, and is answered by the consequences of evaluating “designs” against this crappy theological standard.