"Right. Because the premise [man designs things] has zero rational relationship to your conclusion [therefore somebody designed our DNA]." PatrickHenry
One does not follow the other. You agree with the facts but then say that said agreement has no bearing on the conclusion (which, to be accurate, is that some intelligent process could have designed DNA).
The premise is that an intelligent process can design DNA. If this premise is false, then Intelligent Design is falsified and we move on to other theories. If the premise is not false, then the theory is scientifically valid and worthy of further scientific study.
Can an intelligent process program DNA?
If so, then there is more than one game in town...
I can imagine an intelligent process which could create the earth, the sun, and even the whole galaxy. There are numerous science fiction tales along such lines. So what? Wild imaginings don't mean that one has stumbled onto a serious scientific hypothesis. Again I say (and probably for the last time because the earlier statements didn't register at all) you have no evidence for such a designer. All that you have is the undisputed fact that man can design things, but you have no evidence of some creature prior to man who did the designing that you claim was done.