What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[Angrboda]

The cell is more complex than the circuit board on the asteroid. It was an analogy. We don't know how it could have gotten there. There is only ONE cause that is so far sufficient to lead to the phenomena that are observed in the cell. That is intelligence. But this answer is unacceptable, and according to you anyone who reasons this way is a caveman. 

For intelligence to be even viable as an alternative, you need evidence that an intelligence capable of filling that role existed in the first place. When people study stone tool making technology, they do so within the bounds of established hypotheses as to the existence of a suitable intelligence in the area in question at the right time. If we found stone tools in a 10,000 year old layer of antarctic soil, then design would not be a reasonable hypothesis as there was no designer around at the time. You need to provide some evidence of a suitable designer before the design hypothesis becomes realistic. You have not done so, aside from the fine tuning argument, which is inconclusive at best; we don't know why the parameters of the universe are what they are, and neither do you.

Second, evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the development of intelligence. So claiming that it "looks like an intelligence was involved" gets you nothing as intelligence itself may be the result of natural processes. (Unless you're proposing that the designer evolved naturally, which you're not.) You're making an argument by analogy to human design without realizing that this very appeal to human intelligence may undermine your entire argument about the nature of the designer. Is it possible that your designer evolved to the point of having the capabilities of intelligence and technology necessary for designing life? If not, then you are proceeding from a false analogy because it is possible that human intelligence evolved. You are sneaking in the assumption that intelligence is not the result of natural processes into the basement of your argument. The fact that intelligence and its evolution may be a natural process unravels your entire argument.

I notice you using a lot of William Dembski's terminology. In particular, you claim that intelligence is the only known cause of a specific sequence. Dembski never succeeded in giving any meaning to the term 'specified' in specified complexity. Since you appear comfortable with it, could you explain what makes one sequence 'specified' and what makes another sequence not 'specified'?

As I see your argument, you are claiming:

1. evolution cannot account for what we see in the natural world;
2. a designer can account for it;
3. therefore a designer is the most plausible hypothesis for what we see.

Is this not an accurate summary? If that is so, I'd like to know the details of what it is you see which you claim can only be explained by design. Simply being complex isn't enough. Simply being improbable isn't enough. (Which is the basis of claims about complexity.) So what is the magical ingredient that spells 'design' when we have complex and improbable phenomena?