You've left out a very vast middle ground, including all of life on Earth. Above you will find a post of mine that spells out some of the assumptions you have to make in order to get to this point.
Ultimately, you are saying that "There Is No God." That's all well and good, but it's not a scientific position.
Or is an infinite regress of designers an acceptable idea?
It's not a necessary idea, so I see no point in arguing for or against it.
Additionally, you only address my point that ID implies perfection. You don't address my point that evolution does not imply perfection. That still stands even if my argument about ID is false.
There's no need to address it -- I have no problem with it. My goal on this thread is merely to highlight the unfounded and incompletely considered assumptions being made by allegedly "scientific" people on this thread.
You've missed my point (I think). I don't argue that there's no God. I agree that science cannot make any such statement. I am arguing that if there is an intelligent designer, then such a designer must have either arisen as a result of natural processes or must have always existed. In the first case, why is it more plausible that an intelligent designer arose by natural processes than it is that a single celled organism did? In the second, I would contend that an intelligent being that has always existed would be recognized as a god (not necessarily the Christian one) by most people. In the first case, ID is pretty much equivalent to abiogenesis. In the second, ID is a form of creationism.