Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept?

Your analogy would work better for the real world if this is what you said:Michael claims to be a god gives you your amazing computer and declares it "good." Other people come over and are amazed at what you have, but notice the parts are stamped with serial numbers and tags saying "Made in Japan" or "Product of Taiwan." People point out that anyone could have gotten those parts and put them together and made your computer, and in fact, here's this other guy, Steve Jobs who can do an even better computer for you.You repsond, "No! It's not better, there's a reason this computer doesn't seem to have all the things your new iMac can do, and that's because we don't deserve any better computers. And the reason the parts are stamped is so people have to open their minds and understand that Mike is a god, it's a test and you all failed!"

I disagree with this premise. We pride ourtselves on determining if something is natural (life) or unnatural (created). If some sort of DNA came from space, we would not consider it evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence...merely extraterrestrial life. Now, if extraterrestrial intelligence has developed a form of data transmission that uses DNA, we would have a hard time deciphering the fact that it was artificial, and in fact, this has formed the basis for some really good sci-fi stories.

How is this circular reasoning? We find life, that means there's life, that's pure logic. No where do we jump to the conclusion of intelligent life, because the mere existence of life does not mean intelligence also exists. Science doesn't jump to conclusions like you seem to want to.

I think he is saying the neo-Darwinism (whatever that is) has evovled and run into dead ends, not that the human eye is one. If I'm right, he could have made that clearer, but even so, I'm not sure what he means by dead ends in the evolution of neo-Darwinism since it's still here...