Then explain the paradox you just created. If there is an intelligent designer who/what and where is this designer and where did it/he/she come from? What specifically did this designer design and who designed the designer and who designed the designers designer?
You are correct that one should not allow ones personal beliefs influence your thoughts on science but one should at least understand what science is before profering that advice.
Clearly you don't or you would stop using your false paradigm.
Allow me to clarify a few misconceptions and assumptions you seem to have. First, it isn't required to identify the source to theorize there is a source. We don't fully understand why and how gravity works, but it does exist. We don't fully understand black holes, but they do exist. Can you imagine the frustration of Ben Franklin, had he been subjected to these challenges upon the discovery that lightning was indeed electricity?
Well Ben, where is this big Power Station in the Sky?
Secondly, and probably most fundamental to this debate, "intelligence," doesn't mean "god" or any specific entity. It simply means "intelligence" and what may or may not have created it, is beside the point. This is where your judgment and objectivity is tainted, in my opinion. You assume an intelligent designer is a "he" or "it" and I have never made that argument. Perhaps, and this is just an example, the 'intelligence' is actually a form of 'energy' (for lack of a better word) and we simply don't understand it, or we are unable to comprehend it at this time? Perhaps the 'intelligence' comes from a different realm or dimension, one we aren't even aware of the existence of, at this time? You see, the source of intelligence need not be defined or identified, in order to theorize its role in origin of life.
The theory of intelligent design is more than just some religiously-based falsehood, or myth, there are tangible physical and biological elements that point to an intelligent creator as being responsible for the origin of life. Perhaps this 'intelligence' no longer exists, and life as we know it, is simply a legacy of that intelligence? These are all possibilities, and nothing has been concluded, with the exception of your conclusions based on your own limited human knowledge and prejudices against religion.
If we didn't know how cars came to be, had no history to study or anything to clearly indicate where cars originated, I could argue all day long that intelligence designed the original car, but you could never see that, if your understanding of intelligence was limited to the CPU chip found in the car. It would make no sense to you that a CPU chip could have created the car, and you would refuse to accept the concept. This analogy may seem odd, but it points out the fundamental flaw in your refutation of my theory. You continue to draw conclusions and make assumptions about the 'intelligence' based on your current human understanding of 'intelligence' and that is detrimental to open-mindedness on this topic.
