It’s hard not to “condescend” when people continually state obvious falsehoods. Coyoteman repeatedly asks me for “scientific evidence” of ID, then completely ignores me when I provide it — and continues to demand it.
And if you honestly believe that the complete failure of modern science to explain the origin of the first cell by naturalistic, random mechanisms, is not at least “evidence” of ID, then you are profoundly confused.
Also, as I said before, the problem is not just that science hasn’t “figured it out yet,” though evolutionists would have us believe that. The problem is that the random origin of the first cell would be comparable, as Fred Hoyle put it, to having a tornado in a junkyard result in a fully assembled Boeing 747. I use a slightly different analogy. It would be comparable to having the entire text of the Gettysburg Address show up randomly on some desert sands due to random winds.
I’ve also pointed out that the entire notion of a random origin of the first cell in unfalsifiable and hence, by the very definitions used by many evolutionists, unscientific. Think about it. Explain to me how one could prove that the Gettysburg Address never appeared spontaneously on the sands of a desert.
It can only be done by probabilistic analysis, but evolutionists routinely dismiss such analyses with a wave of the hand. Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is “unscientific” according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.
And I think you are aware that even those analogies do not even remotely touch the universe of improbabilities complexity that is the cell, and all the untold bio processes which exist nowhere else but in the cell.