>>Yet, now those 'superior' cultures invoke the same principle when they cannot explain the formation of eyes or mitochondria. Only, instead of 'gods', the word is 'intelligent design'.
What an asenine statement. The formation of eyes is not the issue, nor is mitochondria, nor RNA, ATP or any other cellular entity...
ID tries to deal with why eyes are even formed in the first place, why there are things like mitochondria, and why there is even reproduction, and how reproduction works.
I can answer that one easily: to see. But that's about as far as IDers will go, because their dogma requires them to ignore the selective pressures that actually led to the evolution of eyes.
"ID tries to deal with why eyes are even formed in the first place, why there are things like mitochondria, and why there is even reproduction, and how reproduction works. '
What an asinine (that, by the way, is the correct spelling. You may want to learn how to use spell check) statement. So, why are there eyes? Or mitochondria? Science can explain that, and even common sense can. One does not need ID for that.
More importantly, can ID explain why the Universe or life exists?