slasher,
The living protein of DNA is limited to the range of natural organic chemistry available; beside our body functions by the absorption of protein from other DNA species. There is nothing unusual in the fact that DNA is found in all life forms as all living forms rely on the same range of proteins for survival. Life itself is a transformation fulidity happening in the catalist of water, air, blood etc.

To quote you, "If intelligent design is true why does all earth lifeform have DNA as the replicating chemical, why doesn't the designer have a whole range of replicating chemical structures. Quite simply it falls down at the first building block.

ID theory - Some features in biology of creatures are too complex to be natural and therefore there must be a designer.

Using the same argument, God is so bloody complex and so there must a designer of God. But this designer is even more complex and hence there must a designer of this designer who designed God, But then this higher designer is even more complex so there must be an even higher designer.......

And so it goes on. Big bang seems less troublesome?

Anyway understanding the true histroy of the church as it is derived mainly from the ancient sun worshipper religions and adapted to suit, the SUN saviour is in essence the true God. Because we are all made of star stuff anyway. And when it finally expands to engulf the earth then we have the hell on earth. True Armageddon? The ancient people new best really we, just complicate things with this god stuff.

To Whom It May Concern: You cannot have a serious debate about science and religion, reason and faith etc., if you insist on airing your most intimate religious, (or rather anti-religious) hang-ups. The same as you cannot have a serious debate about the man-woman relationship (biological, psychological or social) if you insist on airing your most intimate sexual hang-ups. There are namely two intimacies in the psychological make-up of a human being: the horizontal, sexual one, concerned with a partner (real or virtual, accepted or denied), and the vertical, religious one, concerned with a Creator (real or virtual, accepted or denied).

Intelligent Design informs us there is a mysterious designer making indeterminate modifications at an unspecified level to unidentified organisms using unknown techniques.

Nevertheless it must be true, because the fossil record has gaps.

This page is for practicing English purposes only.

I'm amazed by the number of comments coming from people who profess to know what the ID debate is about yet continue to make arguments that go either well beyond, well short or even fail to look carefully at their own ideas for what they call science.

It's important to understand when life first happened, we weren't there. Hence the debates.
Then to realise both arguments are attempting to piece together potential scenarios.

Both sides also have their own prejudice as a starting point, for Evolutionists its Methodological Naturalism, which attempts understanding origins with the bias of not invoking the supernatural.

For ID theorists it's with the bias of a designer when the evidence points to design. In the opinion of ID, there certainly seems to be many design features inherent within life itself.
To simply ignore this feature of life is unwise at best and purposely ignorant at worst.

The idea that one argument however, is based on a philosophical starting point and the other is not is also quite ignorant, the idea that one is attempting to push a certain barrow and the other is not is deceptive to say the least. Because both arguments have their own “God of the gaps”, one is supernatural the other is chance.

To underscore biogenesis as the best explanation without a real stretch of the intellect is no more puzzling than the consideration of a designer; both ultimately involve an incredible step of faith.

One, believes science must consider only materialistic origins, and when the data seems to indicate the odds could be overwhelmingly against it, they invoke answers such as ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ attempting to explain the lack of fossilised transitional forms and the Cambrian Explosion, being the 'biological big bang'.

The other believes it is just as plausible to consider a designer, both sides require faith and both sides need to be considered under the banner of ‘Objective Science’.

Yet both sides could be argued to be anything but Objective because both, it would seem, begin with their own prejudices.