“The fact that you resort to “straightforward testimonials in favor of ID”, when asked for scientific evidence for ID, rather explains your perplexity, don’t you think?”
I have repeatedly offered the complexity of the simplest known living cell as an example of “evidence” of ID. But you and others here steadfastly refuse to pay attention. Perhaps intelligence is required to identify intelligent design, and perhaps you guys don’t have it. I just don’t know how else to explain your invincible ignorance on the matter.
Science certainly cannot explain how the first cell came into existence by purely naturalistic, random mechanisms. And the problem is not just that we “haven’t yet figured it out.” Mathematicians have proved that the first cell is extremely unlikely to have come to be by random mechanisms. And I mean unlikely as in 10**(-10,000,000) or less, or zero probability for all practical purposes.
To my way of thinking, the fact that we cannot explain the cell without resort to ID is strong evidence if not proof of ID in nature.
Perhaps you disagree, but will you at least quit claiming falsely that I have offered no “evidence” of ID? Good grief, am I wasting my time here or what?
So is it your recommendation that scientists give up?
Good grief, am I wasting my time here or what?
Ignoring your condescension and insults for the moment, I'd say that if what you've offered thus far on this thread is all you have for "proof", then yes, indeed, I think you're wasting your time--and everyone else's.