ID proponate William Dembski has posted online a research paper titled "Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science." (Theodicy is a defense of God's goodness in the face of evil and suffering.)  While Dembski accepts an old age for the earth and universe (4.5 and 12 billion years, respectively) and believes the Genesis flood account must be interpreted as local, he nevertheless understands the young-earth creationist position as being theologically sound (see page 15 of the paper).  But most importantly, the focus of his paper--the goodness of God and man's role in the "creation" of evil--provides excellent food for thought.  The following allegory from pages 28 and 29 of the paper helps summarize Dembski's points:

It is vital here to have a correct picture of Christ’s redemption and our role in it. In allowing evil and then redeeming us from it, God is not an arsonist who starts a fire, let’s things heat up for us, and then, at the last moment, steps in so that he can be the big hero. Nor is God a casual bystander, who sees a fire start spontaneously and then lets it get out of control so that he can be the big hero to rescue us. We are the arsonists. We started the fire. God wants to rescue us not only from the fire we started but also, and more importantly, from our disposition to start fires, that is, from our life of arson. But to rescue us from a life of arson requires that we know the seriousness of what arson can do. Fires always start out small. If God always instantly put out the fires we start, we would never appreciate the damage fires can do. God therefore allows the fire that we have started in consenting to evil to rage, but not so that he can be a big hero when he rescues us from it but so that we can rightly understand the human condition and come to our senses. In rescuing us, God does end up being a hero. But that is not the point. The point is to fix a broken relationship between God and humanity.

I recognize that this subject is controversial and complex, and no one illustration is going to tidy everything up.  But Dembski emphasizes many of the right things, it seems to me, such as man's personal responsibility for evil by rebelling against God.  (And some might argue that God being the hero is the main point).  I especially liked his closing words:

Let us always bear in mind that the problem of evil is part of a much larger problem, namely, the problem of a benevolent God restoring a prodigal humanity to himself. This is the problem of good, and it subsumes the problem of evil.