Which one? That the earth formerly had a reducing atmosphere or that organic molecules could form from interactions between chemicals in the atmosphere?
If you think something works in a particular fashion, it is up to you to provide evidence for it.
So how does intelligent design work? It begins with thoughts. What kind of evidence do I have to provide in order to assure the scientific world that thoughts are integral to intelligent design? It often, yet not always, ends with a combination of matter that performs specific functions.
Is it somehow mysterious, superstitious, or unscientific to suggest the building blocks of the particle world - consistently cause and effect related as they are - might entail a designer? I mean, we're not talking about proofs here. Just reasonable inferences, no less scientific than those asserting morphological similarities constitute a relationship in history.
What kind of evidence are you demanding here? A little man who looks like George Burns and pops out to introduce himself and state plainly that he is responsible for bringing about and sustaining a universe that is intellectually accessible?
The latter. The experiment was based on a closed system, with water evaporating into a reducing atmosphere, being esposed to electrical discharges, and then condensing, and then going through the cycle again. This produced a variety of organic compounds, including amino acids.
It is possible that such an atmosphere was not present on Earth, which would invalidate one of the premises of the hypothesis. That organic compounds were created at all is astounding, but if the earth did not have a reducing atmosphere it wouldn't translate into a means of creating life on earth abiotically. AFAIK, the composition of the atmosphere back then hasn't been conclusively quantified, btw.
So how does intelligent design work? It begins with thoughts.
Got any evidence of that? Any way of gathering evidence of that? ie: thought + supreme being = intelligent design.
What kind of evidence do I have to provide in order to assure the scientific world that thoughts are integral to intelligent design?
Any evidence that can be verified, and a method of gathering such evidence that can be replicated.
It often, yet not always, ends with a combination of matter that performs specific functions.
Any evidence of that would also be required.
Is it somehow mysterious, superstitious, or unscientific to suggest the building blocks of the particle world - consistently cause and effect related as they are - might entail a designer?
Without any evidence whatsoever, superstition and mythology is all ID has. And, yes, that is unscientific.
What kind of evidence are you demanding here?
It's your theory. What evidence do you have? None. That's the problem. What mechanisms are there to gather any evidence? None. That's another problem. Is there any way to falsify the "theory"? Nope.