1. DNA is called the book of life. Can anyone make a book--that makes sense--by just throwing letters randomly?
Yes. If you accept misspellings and having the book come out in lots of different languages. And then if you throw away all the books that you don't like.
The DNA base-pairs are often likened to letters in an alphabet. What you forget is that almost any combination of them makes up some sort of "word" . Therefore many more random combinations make "sense" in some way. You can change some part of any string of DNA and in most cases it makes "sense". It just might not produce a very viable organism but that isn't such a concern of nature as it might be to a book publisher.
In addition, after throwing letters together you then throw away all the books that you don't like for whatever reason. This isn't going to make for a very profitable book publisher but it is the way life works. For example, about half (maybe more ) of all human "books" are thrown away before the ink is even dry. Some other percentage is thrown out before the "book" is finished "printing". This may seem very wasteful but that is the way things are done in nature and it happens to work very well. And humans are an animal that uses a low quantity, high quality approach to reproduction. Some animals operate with a throw away percentage way, way higher thant 50%.
2. Genetic codes and information are embedded in DNA. Is not intelligence required to decode and process information?
No, just chemistry. DNA is a chemical and is involved in chemical reactions which produce proteins.
3. The cell has a "complex copying" machine that replicates DNA's to RNAs. Which is more reasonable to believe that intelligence was needed to make that copying machine, or was it random chance that did it?
Since we know that some simple copying machines can arise through chemistry it isn't too unreasonable to surmise that more complex machines might too. But we don't know. To assume an intelligence because we don't know would have us still thinking that lightening is tossed at us from the hand of Zeus.
4. The actual process from DNA to protein to life is a million times more complicated than this flowchart. As this flow chart required intelligence (though limited) to make, so should the more complex process require intelligence. Agree / Disagree? Please give reason.
Disagree. We know that very, very complex things can arise without intelligence.
5. What did Miller's failed experiment in 1953 prove?
a) that it requires blind chance to produce "left handed" amino acids--the building block of life? Or, did it prove that the chance of life coming to existence by mere chance is mathematically impossible?
Miller's experiment has been outdated for decades so why does it matter what it proved? At the time it was a big deal because it wasn't clear that any basic building blocks of life could arise in such a fashion (I guess because they were considered to be "too complicated". This was proved to be wrong.)
6. Darwinian evolution--as taught in school--says that all living things came to existence because of unguided natural processes. On the other hand, intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not by undirected processes such as natural selection. Considering the above flowchart--which hopefully simplified the picture--which is more reasonable to believe?
Since we can use evolutionary processes to produce complicated (very) outcomes and the nature of these outcomes have characteristics that living things also have the most reasonable thing to accept is that living things were, indeed, produced by similar processes. This is especially true when we can see the process going on before our very eyes. To think that there is any direction involved would be silly since we can see it happening without any evidence whatsoever for direction.
Perfect! 
™ Version 4.2
