Some remarks on pandas

According to today's Guardian, China's entire population of wild pandas are facing extinction because the fussy buggers refuse to eat bamboo, which is coming into flower (as it apparently does once every 60 years). Pandas, you see, are, as we scientists put it, rubbish. They should be carnivores - they have the metabolism for it - but they eat bamboo, and so have to eat half their body-weight of the stuff each day simply to survive. This to my mind, is the clinching argument (should another be needed) against creationism. If they were designed by a rational creator, surely they wouldn't be so crap. They'd be carnivores, and thriving. As it is, they've found an evolutionary niche, which allowed them to develop into where they are, but had nowhere to go beyond - not unexpected, given that natural selection solves immediate problems as cheaply as it can, with no regard for the future.
A similar argument has been posited concerning Ichneumon wasps - wasps that lay their eggs in a living host. How could a rational creator permit such an unpleasant method of reproduction? This falls down, however, on its assumption that said creator is moral - this, to me, is one of the weakest assumptions theism makes. Why should he/she/it be? On the evidence I've seen so far, I'd suggest a complete amorality is far more likely.
I suppose the panda argument could, of course, fall down, if we were to argue that the creator is a bumbling moron. But other problems arise from that tack...
Still, pandas - rubbish. Remember that. It's important!