I am trying to figure out if the main id argument is logical but it is sort of bouncing back and forth in my head and I keep asking hmm can you really say or infer that ?Here's my thoughts.Ids argument is that specified complexity (, computers, electronics, etc) is only known to result from intelligent activity. They use abductive reasoning to show that since DNA is a massive source of specifically arranged components that act to serve a function, they exhibit specified complexity or functional complexity.And that's the gist of the argument. The only known source of specified complexity being intelligent activity equates to an intelligent source for the origin of life and the information needed to produce it as the most plausible conclusion. It must be the most plausible as it is the only known source of specified complexity. Yet the origin of life has no known cause. The origin of specified complexity may be restricted to an intelligent source, but we are not talking simply of specified complexity. We are talking about life and sentience. and yet life has no known cause. Scientists cannot make life in test tubes. Id actually uses this as a claim against the chemical soup theory. They say, hey... If chemical processes can create life, why can't you make life ? But humans are the only known intelligent source capable of producing specified complexity. So in other words id is saying that we were likely designed because the only known cause specified complexity is intelligence yet the issue is not the complexity but the life. And humans cannot create life. Thus there is no known source capable of creating LIFE not simply SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Does this make any sense to anyone ?This stuff is fascinating to me. I have so many books I'm trying to start but I can't stop getting new books on evolutionary theories every time I finish one.