“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[Harris]

At many occasions, I disputed that CHANCE has no scientific value. There is nothing in nature, which has no cause for its existence. If we do not have, appropriate scientific evidence that does not mean CHANCE prevail and outrun the scientific reasoning by mere axioms and postulates. In case you are not a promoter of CHANCE, then what proposition you have to explain the origin of complex structures such as DNA code?

I’ll give you few quotes which perfectly fit to the intelligent design argument:

"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express (August 14, 1981)

"Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10 to the power 15 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 1015 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 1015, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain."
Evolution: A theory in Crisis
Denton
page 330:

Denton briefly scratches the surface of the supposedly "simple" cell:
"Altogether a typical cell contains about ten million million atoms. Suppose we choose to build an exact replica to a scale one thousand million times that of the cell so that each atom of the model would be the size of a tennis ball. Constructing such a model at the rate of one atom per minute, it would take fifty million years to finish, and the object we would end up with would be the giant factory, described above, some twenty kilometres in diameter, with a volume thousands of times that of the Great Pyramid."
Evolution: A theory in Crisis
pages 329-30

Could you just explain, for my benefit if you would, how any of the above actually disproves the theory of evolution?

Forgive me but all I read is a mixture of personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance, so please point out where I'm misreading this as I presume you wouldn't have posted this in order to evidence something.

Please read all of my responses to Esquilax