Nature belongs to ID

Your entire argument seems to boil down to just this one comment. Your find the idea that life naturally develops to be incredulous.Yet your personal incredulity doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Your argument is called the Argument from Incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy. Whether an individual personally finds an argument to be personally convincing has nothing to do with the accuracy of that argument; you can find it "ridiculous" that adding two and two gives four, but it's still so. Who told you that anyone thinks that nature develops life through arbitrary events?The fact that chemistry is not at all random or arbitrary does not mean that it is intelligently guided. Mutation and natural selection are also not arbitrary...and do not require the interference or guidance of an intelligent agent.

"Evidence" is defined as a fact or observation that directly adjusts the probability that a given hypothesis is accurate relative to competing hypotheses.In the case of ID, the evidence given to support that hypothesis usually falls into just a few categories:1) Facts or observations which do fit the predictions of ID, but which also fit just as well with the predictions of purely naturalistic evolution as well, and therefore is not really evidence in favor of ID over naturalism. In nearly all cases, these arguments also violate the principle of parsimony, and differenciate themselves from their naturalistic counterparts by simply adding "...and God did it" to the end without providing evidence necessitating the inclusion of the additional term.2) Falsehoods - we see plenty of claimed evidence that simply isn't true; claims of observations or facts that are false due to the incompetence of the claimant, and occasionally attempts at outright deception.3) Incredulity masquerading as evidence. This is usually an argument rather than actual evidence, and typically boils down to some combination of an emotional sense of wonder and curiosity at one's own ignorance of the natural world (Lord Kelvin once said that the mechanisms that drive a plant to grow from a seed or which allow the mind to cause a muscle to move are "infinitely beyond" human understanding), and a sense that alternatives "just don't sound right."I've participated in many debates concerning Intelligent Design, and I have not once seen an accurate depiction of facts or observations that actually supported the hypothesis of Intelligent Design beyond competing hypotheses. In other words, I've never seen any real evidence that would suggest Intelligent Design is in fact an accurate model of reality.Do you perhaps have some facts or observations you can share that would make Intelligent Design more likely to accurately represent reality than competing hypotheses, specifically the hypothesis that life processes including evolution are purely natural and do not require the interference of external intelligent actors?

No argument here. I've certainly never claimed that life is anything more or less than an extremely complex series of interdependent self-sustaining chemical and physical reactions.Are you claiming, then, that the simple existence of ordered systems, like the laws of physics, is evidence supporting an Intelligent Designer? I don;t quite understand what you're saying here. How can "the evolution of life be as credulous as the birth of a baby?" Credulity is irrelevant. The demonstrable accuracy of a given hypothesis in comparison to alternative hypotheses is all that matters. Yet mutations obey the very constrained and predictable laws of chemistry, and so are not entirely random. To describe mutations as purely arbitrary events is to describe them inaccurately.Put another way - rolling dice may be somewhat random, but the result will always predictably be an integer between one and six. And the laws of probability are themselves consistent, as well.

You and I both know what Creationists and cdesign proponentists mean whenever they use words like "random" or "arbitrary" or "accident" in reference to mutation. They've usually been told that mutations are like a tornado in a junkyard, utterly random, and that without some intelligent guiding force such a tornado could never assemble a complex, functioning machine.But mutations, while having a significant random element, are not purely arbitrary, and to describe them as such without qualifying the limits of that element is to describe mutation inaccurately.Mutations are guided, simply not by an intelligent external actor. Mutations are dependent on the laws of chemistry - genes don't just randomly self-assemble in totally random patterns from a random soup of base elements (even a totally random soup of base elements would still react in predictable ways; Argon isn't going to just arbitrarily form a covalent bond with Carbon). They're copying errors, and the results are still assembled from the same already-complex components as the rest of the genetic material. Mutations are also dependent on the surrounding genetic code, which is inherited, not random. And finally, of course, mutations are guided by natural selection - their initial appearance is somewhat arbitrary, but their continued prevalence in a population is contingent on environment and circumstance.Individual mutations are random in their initial appearance because we cannot predict from the parent organism specifically what mutations will exist, but those mutations are not so random that we cannot predict with great accuracy the limited types of mutations that can occur, because they are all copying errors. It's like rolling dice - we may not be able to predict the specific result, but we always know that each die will come up as an integer between one and six, that we'll never see a decimal, and we'll never see a ten, and the die will never turn into a chicken. It's random...but not in the same sense as a tornado in a junkyard.