[Alter Kaker]

This fellow's argument is certainly obscure, but obscurity does not equal profundity.

There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.

This argument makes no sense. Cells just seem too clean and orderly to be of naturalistic origin? Guess this can't be natural either:

Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"

[unspun]

Basically every creationist argument, no matter how gussied up, seems to come from simple-minded incredulity. "That can't possibly be the case," because, well, "it just can't!"

Not "can't because it just can't." Extremely unlikely because we don't see it happening in the universe on any consistent enough basis. (Remember the principles of actual science.)

[GodGunsGuts]

Asked and answered in the paper. You might want to actually read the paper before commenting next time—GGG

[dan1123]

Cells just seem too clean and orderly to be of naturalistic origin? Guess this can't be natural either:

[Image of Giant's Causeway]

You could have posted a picture of a snowflake or a crystal too, but all of those are not what ID is arguing about. It is not that cells are "orderly" or "clean", but that it is a complex machine that down to the individual molecule does exactly the tasks that are needed and nothing extraneous--compounded by the fact that extraneous functions would likely kill the organism. This is about information and its order-like the difference between randomized bits (or in your case, a repeating pattern of bits) and a well-engineered computer program.