"WHO HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE THE SPONTANEOUS ORGANIZATION OF A PROTEIN"
"You have yet to explain how the designer came to exist, the structure of the designer, the thought processes of the designer, the way the designer interacts with the universe and exactly which things the designer designed. "
Both require a leap of faith.Darwinism is predicated on the first protein cell spontaneously inventing itself.A third rail they dare not touch.
You need to at least learn what evolution is about before you enter these threads. Evolution explains biodiversity, not the start of life.
Actually, no. "Darwinism" (darwinian evolution) works exactly the same no matter how the first life came into being. Evolutionary theory takes the existence of living things as a "given" and precedes from there.
There is nothing unusual about this btw, nor does it indicate any sort of "weakness." All scientific theories presuppose "initial" conditions. If they didn't they would be unworkably broad, unbounded and vague. For instance darwinian theory makes no sense except concerning entities that reproduce, have properties of inheritance, manifest the properties of superfecundity (produce more offspring than can possibly survive) and so on.
One (but only one) of the problems with ID, btw, is that it's advocates refuse to delineate the initial conditions of the theory. (Of course many of the advocates admit, if inconstantly, that ID presently fails to qualify as a scientific "theory" anyway.)