"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?
>>So, why are there eyes? Or mitochondria? Science can explain that, and even common sense can. One does not need ID for that.
Why are there eyes? If one accepts that evolution is the reason, an even more fundamental question arises, why evolution at all?
Why life at all?
Why reproduction? Survival of the species? That's a piss poor explanation. There is no intelligent reason any reproducation should ever take place. Science has a philosophical explanation which is taken in faith, but no compelling reason for reproduction.
Reproduction, be it in scientific allignment with the theory of evolution, makes no sense outside of an intellgent design. For what purpose should anything reproduce at all? There is no point, especially the lower one gets in terms of life forms.
>>More importantly, can ID explain why the Universe or life exists?
Yes it can. It explains why cells exist, dna, eyes, and even evolution. Evolution cannot explain itself or the questions you ask without dogmatic assumptions of faith.. Evolution cannot even justify itself in the face of the lack of a prime mover...