Ask Hastings. He says that if it's imaginable, you should be able to build it. I think that's the dumbest thing I've read here recently, and you know I'm not inclined to mince words.
Isaac Newton had no trouble offering a design argument, based on scientific evidence, in his greatest scientific publication, Principia. I still don’t see your point.
The trajectories of planets in the solar system are widely acknowledged to be unguided and unplanned. No one has a problem with that. Newton apparently didn't; he worked out the laws of motion that (approximately) govern them. He didn't feel it necessary to include Divine intervention in his physics. So why must we allow for it in evolution?
Numero pondere et mensura Deus omnia condidit
No I didn't. I said that you can't build it until you can imagine how to do so.
If you can't build it, how are you going to prove that you have imagined how to do so? Don't try to hide behind star formation or colliding continental plates. Those things obviously can't be duplicated in the laboratory. But the physics of those events can be pretty convincingly demonstrated in other ways. And no one is arguing the points of star formation nor tectonic activities.
Convince me that you, or anyone else has even the slightest notion of how to create synthetic life. If all of man's intellect can't figure out how to put ingredient "A" together with ingredient "B", and come up with life, then it is pretty arrogant to insinuate to others that they are stupid to not believe that it could happen by random chance.