As the case for all life evolving from simple cell structures is looking less and less convincing, alternative explanations are needed. Science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. To account for the diversity of life on Earth, an adequate cause is required. Many in the scientific world are beginning to seriously consider the case for intelligent design. We may even live to see the day they debunk themselves.
That is a total whopper--as 1/2 hour cruising through your local libraries technical biological journals can easily verify.
The complexity and apparent design of life has defied a purely naturalistic explanation.
See above.
and the problem of how life started remains unanswered by the scientific community.
The scientific endeavor is, was, and probably always will be awash in questions that remain unanswered.
The physical evidence presented by DNA code and the fossil record has not supported the theory. The available evidence seems to be pointing to the separateness of different species.
Again, not true even the greatest stretch of the imagination you are capable of. The available evidence "seems to be pointing" to the notion that when intermediate morphological species are found, they will have appropriately intermediate DNA. A prediction that has been verified by field studies innumerable times. So often, in fact, that it is now more of an exercise for undergrads, rather than the commonplace grist of current papers.
As the case for all life evolving from simple cell structures is looking less and less convincing, alternative explanations are needed.
No, it isn't, and no, they are not. You cannot make this true by repeating it over and over in a confident tone of voice.
Many in the scientific world are beginning to seriously consider the case for intelligent design.
True, if, by many, you mean a double-handful of semi-famous cranks with obvious axes to grind, and/or dubious credentials as working biological scientists.
Science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect.
Most natural sciences rest heavily on statistical correlation of phenomena that exhibit collateral non-uniform distributions. Blanket statements about causality are, at best, an extraneous, confusing notion highly influenced by the subjective concerns of the observer.
There is no clearly distinct natural law of cause and effect. The notion, like the notion of distinct species with distinct scientific names, is just a handy peg for humans to hang their epistemological hats on.