[PatrickHenry]

And yet we see evidence of Intelligent Design when we look at a junkyard filled with buried cars. We can also observe the evidence of intelligent design when we watch Man program DNA via gene-splicing. In contrast, when we look at the fossil record, we can't tell if speciations were caused naturally (ala Evolution) or by un-natural processes (ala Intelligent Design). With such admitted evidence in hand, clearly there is more than "one game in town" to explain the origin of Life.

Auto junkyards are indeed the ejecta of man's well-known designs. Not a problem. As I said, we have evidence of man designing things. The concept of man-made design is understood, but does not of itself prove -- or even give evidence for -- the ID conjecture. All your claims and conjectures notwithstanding, we have zero evidence of some celestial designer tinkering around with DNA.

[Southack]

"The concept of man-made design is understood, but does not of itself prove -- or even give evidence for -- the ID conjecture. All your claims and conjectures notwithstanding, we have zero evidence of some celestial designer tinkering around with DNA."

You seem to be both agreeing with the evidence yet disputing its validity (a decidedly self-contradictory position to hold).

You agree that Man is intelligent. You agree that Man has designed things (including programming DNA via gene-splicing), yet you dispute that there is any evidence that any intelligent process tinkered with DNA.

Also, what does your introduction of a "celestial" designer have to do with anything? If one intelligent process can be shown to design DNA, then other intelligent processes are not needed to validify the theory of Intelligent Design.