Oh yeah I agree completely that it adds nothing to be discussed beyond those 3 words, might as well say a wizard done it, it implies magic rather that reason there is no discussing it because it's just the one word which cannot be discussed it's "as it was written" in a book 1500 or so years ago. I personally find it odd that anyone believed in it then, I find it more strange that there are even more believers in it now, scary even more than strange if I'm honest that common sense is the minority in 2013.

The problem is that the very logic you use to disregard intelligence stemming from non-intelligent processes is the very same logic that could be applied to any intelligent design theory. You can't suggest that intelligence must come from intelligen processes without also giving an explanation for the origin of the intelligent processes in the first place.

Interactive demonstration of genetic evolution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/craig_reynolds/sets/72157624897113048/

The most visible specimens are eaten (clicked by user). Remaining specimens reproduce.

Nothing random about it.

It was made through many small incremental brush strokes.  It did not materialize out of thin air in one piece as the Bible would tell you the world, humans and all animals were created.

Fair enough...I guess.

Anyway, why is it that intelligence cannot stem from unintelligent processes?

Are cheese, wine and yoghurt also evil? Considering we use microrganisms to make them and they're all evil in origin, they must be right? So the symbolic blood of Christ is evil?

What about the bacteria in our bodies that we need to survive?

The point was that we don't expect anyone to believe that the picture was not made by a painter. When we see a picture, we know there's a painter.  To the best of our logic, we know it's created by a natural being following natural laws, and not a wizard.

A picture is too complex to create randomly in one step, just like our DNA with what they say has over 3 Gigabits of data, could not be created in one go randomly. The odds are beyond astronomical. And that's not what evolution implies. Evolution implies that many many small incremental changes which are "directed" by selection, can add up to very complex systems over time.

Drawings, by definitions, are made by painters...I know the "designer" argument with the painter, builder, designer, etc. But I always thought it was terrible because it only works if you use man-made objects...which obviously have creators. 

Anyway, you have no idea what's unlikely. The universe is unbelievably huge. Estimates say that there are nearly 8.8 billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy alone. And there are estimated to be over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Not the entire universe, just the observable part. And that's just within the extremely tiny time zone that humanity is able to observe, which is only a fraction of the universe's actual age.

And that's just our universe. No one knows how many other universes exist (if any) and how long they've been in existence. The numbers could literally reach into infinity...at which point, even the most unlikeliest happenings would be inevitable.

I mean, how big/old would you require the universe to be before something like life becomes a fair possibility? I haven't done the math, but I don't see anything unlikely about it.

Do you think these laws somehow make our universe special? For all we know, our universe could be a moderately complex universe. There could be infinitely more universes with more complex laws or with less compex laws. There could be some universes with no laws at all, and subsequently popped out of existence. Who the hell knows? There's no reason to believe that our group of laws is special and that there needs to be some divine explanation behind it all. 

you know you did just answer a number of posts with the word "No"? like you want other people to bother reading what you have to say and form a proper response for you, where  you do not offer that same courtesy? No