The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency. Also we have never observed nature acting alone do such. Therefore 1-3 are supported.
This is not correct.
Biological systems exhibit (apparently) these properties, but
cannot be shown to be designed via an intelligent agency.
To suggest otherwise is cyclic.
RE: (2) requires such a laborious and philosophical dicussion of
the nature of information that people here tend to get very
bored and the threads get closed just when they start to
become interesting
RE: (1) IC has (at some length) been shown to be insufficient to
infer Intelligent Design. IC can come from evolutionary
algorithms in which the 'design' comes from 'unintelligent'
process even though the rules are set in place by an intelligence.
High information content depends on what you mean by information.
If that has the physics slant, then order can come from natural
processes and does often in chemical reactions.
If you want to ascribe some 'meaning' related defintion to
'information' in this context then the problems in RE: (2) rear
their none-too-attractive heads again.
RE: (3) as I am sure has been pointed out here as far as IC
is concerned they can be shown to be feasible. The information
part is then subject to that tiresome discussion.
Any comment on the issues involving primary source would be
appreciated.
If 'life' cannot have come about without intelligent intervention
then that recurses backward and we find that 'life' can never have
got started. NOTE: 'life' is in quotes and used here in a kind
of abstract/poetic sense rather than scientific context.
If the prime creator was NOT intelligently designed, then the
arguments are falsified, since to have intent to create the
prime creator would have had to have a high information content,
be IC, etc.