The term “intelligent design” implies a teleological intent in the direction of natural selection. We assume this intelligence is consciously self-aware, but this doesn’t have to be the case. The Grand Canyon was not “intelligently designed”; it evolved from the relationship of solar energy, water chemistry, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, chemical bonds, and quantum mechanics.
The same laws apply to the emergence and evolution of life. Matter that reproduces is more stable and survives over time as a species longer than ordinary non-reproducing matter. This creates an entropy gradient from less-stable to more-stable forms of matter. Matter randomly discovered how to create a battery from the voltage difference between hydrogen and carbon dioxide ions under the right conditions of temperature, pressure, and proximity, driving an “engine” of hydrocarbon synthesis and greater complexity. Complixification temporarily raised the individual organism’s entropy, but reproduction increased the stability of its species.
Four billion years later, here we are. No design needed. The whole thing is just a ball rolling down a hill, except the ball is the matter/energy of the universe, and the hill is the entropy of the universe.
The single cell proves your claim to be total nonsense.
You would be shocked at how ridiculously complex it is.
An excellent book that would “reboot” your thinking on this and other topics:
https://www.amazon.com/Falsification-Science-Our-Distorted-Reality/dp/B08WK2H7SJ/
When you consider the fact that matter can only be altered, never truly destroyed, reincarnation becomes unassailable truth - just not in the spiritual way of thinking.
But I AM constantly surprised by mankind’s tendency toward arrogance. Coining the term “Junk DNA” was dismissive of biology yet to be understood.
A crystal is more stable than a biological cell, and the increasing entropy of the universe does indeed promote the dull, stable, repeating aspects of nature over the more complex features like living organisms. But that is devolution, not evolution. You are effectively arguing that no designer is needed to explain life if we just assume the universe is a randomly generated automated biological factory, such that complex biology just emerges as the expected result. Think that through and you'll realize you've just assumed an initial state that requires an even greater Designer.
Besides, open systems just decay faster than closed ones in almost all cases, and there's no reason to think they can generate spontaneously increasingly complexity; crystals and layered sediments and such are what you get in the real world.
Why can’t science recreate life in the lab? I’ll even spot them amino acids.