(Even the top experts who study abiogenesis concede that they cannot explain the astounding complexity of the simplest known living cell in terms of random natural processes without ID.)
Show me one "top expert" (actual scientist working in the field) who even acknowledges ID when doing science.
But what you dont understand is that even if some entity designed the first living cell on earth, EVOLUTION STILL WORKS.
Personally, I love the idea of ODIN or SHIVA creating the first cell and setting off life as we know it! That sounds awesome!
"Show me one "top expert" (actual scientist working in the field) who even acknowledges ID when doing science."
OK, one more. No, they don't explicitly acknowledge ID, but they *cannot* explain the first living cell by purely naturalistic, "random" processes. Until they can explain it, ID is really the only alternative, whether they or you realize it or not.
And the problem is not just that we "don't yet know" how it happened, the problem for naturalists is that mathematicians have essentially proven that the first living cell could not have come together by random chance.
"Dawkins's "central argument" is that because every complex system must be created by an even more complex system, an intelligent designer would have had to be created by an even greater super-intellect."
The author is making the point that Dawkin's is hung on his own petard. He argues that adherents on an intelligent designer face the fatal flaw of the first cause but he accepts axiomatically the existence of the first self replicators. It is pretty funny actually.
Dawkins has a problem and judging by your posts so do you. Biogenesis is the law of the land so to speak, life has only been observed to come from other life. Now that is a scientific proposition that is eminently falsifiable, create life in the lab by intelligent design and that law is repealed. Abiogenesis, otoh, is not science. Any theory that claims that life was created from non life is not falsifiable by the very nature of the claim. In order to falsify that claim every chemical reaction in every square mm of the universe would have had to have been observed since t=0+.
So you call the first replicators an axiom and have at it from there. We, the dreaded creationists, have an analogous word that we call faith. However, we are up front about our faith while the Professor Dawkin's of the world use words like axiom and hand wave away the religious equivalent which is faith. Pretty amusing, no?