Quote dumping is fun but it will not convince anyone of anything. Those "scientists" you cite are not, as you imply, part of a wave of professionals realizing that the more they learn about cells the more it appears that it was designed. On the contrary, the more is learned about cells the more it is understood how life might have come into being naturally. (For instance, the evolution of the flagellum, once ballyhooed as impossible for "evilutionists" to explain, is now fairly well understood.)

In short, you are wrong and the answer to the thread title is that it was not designed, but it was not pure randomness either -- chemical processes became self-sustaining and replicating etc. and added on to each other and eventually became recognizable life forms.

your sources are just statements based on speculation without any solid proof behind them :/

quick search on wikipedia on Stephen C. Meyer pretty much summed up my opinion on the matter and which has been the problem in Intelligent Design/Creationism Theory allways.

National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."

Challenging Science, Expelled Exposed, National Center for Science Education

And you base this off what kind of scientific study? I would like to see it. You must know something scientists don't know.

Without having a hell of a lot of knowledge in this field, I would guess you're looking for something like this..?

There's still a long way to having a full understanding of how this might have happened, so don't expect any definitive answers on this subject.

By your own logic then...the designer (which must be complex, more so than nay life on earhth) must have had a desinger...which had a designer, which had a designer, which ad a designer...etc...etc...etc...

This.  I'm not saying it's fully understood, I'm saying that the more we learn the closer we get to understanding how it happened naturally, which is the complete opposite of your claim. 

Surprisingly for scientists they're falling into the same reason humans have made up the supernatural for thousands of years. "I can't explain it therefore it must be a god, or a ghost, or some benevolent force of nature". Just because we can't explain something yet doesn't mean that God did it, wasn't too long ago that we couldn't explain so many of the things that we have in text books for high school students today.

Oosnap,

I assume that you are not heavily into science. Neither am I. Therefore, I look to experts and generally trust their opinion on topics like biology.

This is what you are doing here. The difference is, I believe evolution to be the case, because the vast majority of scientists around the world back it up. And I mean the vast, vast majority.

You, on the other hand, seem to have backed intelligent design. I would further that you do so not because that is the general consensus in the scientific community, but rather because it is aligned with your personal religious views on the matter. Therefore, you are choosing a side because it works well with you as a person, not because the rational part of your brain is in agreement.