Life is Intelligently Designed

Ok, I think this debate has devolved into a classic case of talking past each other. Let me jump down to a quote near the very end: "Pro has spent a long time attacking and asserting that naturalistic causes cannot account for the OOL". But I haven't. I've spent a lot of time pointing out that a naturalistic cause is pure speculation, and I've only spent a lot of time on it because Con doesn't seem to be getting the point. I feel that I'm still trying to get to the starting line: Con doesn't want to agree to a useable definition of intelligence, and wants to pretend he's arguing from a scientific vantage, when in fact there isn't any science involved. The tools of science, perhaps, but no science. No one living was an eyewitness to what we're debating, and we'll get nowhere if one side affects a certainty that doesn't exist. Seems to me that Con is being the dogmatic one here, pretending he knows stuff that no one could possibly know.Let me go ahead and address Con's next point while I'm here: It is NOT necessary to observe or even speculate about the designer in order to recognize design. I have absolutely no idea who carved the faces on Mt. Rushmore, or how they did it, but I'm quite certain it's ID. Let me quote a sentence from Con's reference #1: "It should be possible to recreate life, but it will not be easy". Note the future tense. As I have been saying, it has not been recreated at this point in history. But the very next sentence just shouts the incredible tunnel vision of Con's sources: "It should only require clutches of chemists... designing amino acid and nucleic acid sequences to synthesize and assemble...". Really? Did Con not notice the word "design" In there? The author, and Con, somehow manage to miss the fact that they are talking about verifying the concept of intelligent design!!!! Clutches of scientists deliberately assembling molecules is not modeling the effects of random noise, it is modeling intellligent design.Let me just quote the Abstract of Con's reference #2: "Three popular hypotheses attempt to explain the origin or prebiotic molecules... It is not possible to decide which is correct". Well, folks, if it's not possible to decide which is correct, it's not possible to know if ANY of them are correct.So, I'm just going to summarize: As I see it, there is a profound tunnel vision on the part of the sources Con is listening to. They have, a priori, decided certain options are acceptable and others are not. This is the antithesis of honest inquiry. They have flattered themselves with a notion of their own mental superiority, a notion which ironically is not consistent with their acceptable hypotheses of origin. It's just a mess, a tangled web of illogic that's difficult to even begin to negotiate with, as this debate, in its own small way, has illustrated. Wild guesses, dressed up as science, refusing to even listen to philosophy. Yet every scientist must be a philosopher first of all, as he must assume he can actually think.So, if I seem to have dodged anything, my defense is that I was trying to get to the starting line, where two broad hypotheses of origin would get a fair hearing. If we are to consider intelligent design, then we must admit the possibility of intelligence that is physically causitive, otherwise it's mere words masquerading as meaning. And if we are to compare the evidence for each possibility, we must be honest about the evidence - what it is, and equally important, what it is not. We cannot mistake the arrogant certainty of an inbred science community for the scientific method.So, I rest my case. It's been real.