Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
Right out of the gate this article seems to stumble over the truth. An internet search shows that Carole Thaxton is a developer of home school materials and is qualified as a high-school biology teacher. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe there is a difference between a high-school biology teacher and a biologist.
Her husband is a chemist and is associated with the Discovery Institute. It's looking more like this was a religious gathering of believers sponsored by the Discovery Institute rather than a conference of legitimate scientists exploring actual science.
Here's an interesting critique of Stephen C. Meyers (the head of the Discovery Institute) review article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. I think the following paragraph nicely sums up the fallacies perpetrated by the ID crowd:
"Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception as a political movement: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation.
Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented in this paper, just as such an account has been absent from all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened and why. Only a reasonably detailed model provides empirical expectations that can be tested. ID did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model."
>Show me one example of an intelligent being that isn't born from another intelligent being.
Is that your answer to my request for you to post a link to the "evidence" you allude to below? Forgive me if I'm underwhelmed.
If you want an example of a being born from a being less intelligent than they are, it happens at least 1/2 the time on average, for some definition of "intelligent". Or is there actually some meaningful pont you are trying to make?
"What they say is the evidence points to a higher intelligence having designed what we see"
That's an interesting question.
If I were a creationist I would say 'God' fits that bill.
Since I'm not a creationist, I would have to agree with you that God was created by man.
Indeed, how many cans of organic material in a closed system to you open every day to find no new life forms inhabiting.
And it doesn't get any better when you add energy, it kills the cells - it's a neat invention called cooking the food.
The food industry involves itself in billions of tests every year to make sure that the closed systems of their food packages aren't giving rise to new life. They add energy to those closed systems in every manner and form. Go home and open a closed system called a gerber baby food jar - No new life - just food arrived at from adding energy to organic material. lol.
Of course, the absence of abiogenisis observations from all experimentation results means that it must take millions of years.