[MortMan]

Well, the point for me is that while intelligent design may be a great topic for a philosophy course, it might have no place in a science course, if it can't offer a scientific response to the question of how the "intelligence" came to be.

So, what created the first form of "life". What force animated that first form of life? You can't argue chemical interaction (even with the incidence of energy forms such as lightning - there is far too much documented evidence that life cannot be created that way). So what happened?

I guess if creationism can't answer that question, it cannot be taught in science class, either.

[Dimensio]

So, what created the first form of "life". What force animated that first form of life? You can't argue chemical interaction (even with the incidence of energy forms such as lightning - there is far too much documented evidence that life cannot be created that way). So what happened?

You are attempting to argue that if no other answer is currently known with available knowledge, then intelligent intervention is the logical conclusion. This is not a logical argument. You are arguing from incredulity: "I don't know what did it, so it MUST have been created!" Secondly, you are not only ignoring the extensive research in the field of abiogenesis, but you are also boiling down one rather old hypothesis into an overgeneralized strawman and attacking it from a position of ignorance.