By the self same logical scientific pricipals the Darwinism is founded on, he has delivered, on contradictory logical scientific principlals , proof that Inteligence must have created the code for life.
There is a lot of discussion going on,and opposition.I don't see either argument as conclusive, but they are both compelling.
I don't see why non-physical life and intelligence can,t exist.I don't agree that the third dimension has the authority to explain reality.Logic doesn't explain the mechanics inside the atom, so logical arguements concerning the origin of life may not be enough.Scientist and acedemics are the first to put forward that the pen is mightier than the sword, yet they seldom include this in their scientific theories,where they ask for concrete proof.
Steven Meyer is a Theist, and to my mind this takes away somewhat from his scientific argument.I don't think you should have a preconceived idea on the subject,if you are working on the solution to this big question.
I cant see much scientific support for Darwin either:
It is highly debateable that the concept of God is genuine.All known scriptures refer to "the gods" and evolution, if correctly translated.So in terms of world religions the argument is a non-argument.You have to examine this.Where does the idea of "One God" and "Creator of the Universe", come from? It is,according to some,a nonsensical idea.
The idea that the whole lot arose spontaneously is hard to accept.
It seems that a lot of our scientific ideas have been tampered with to keep the human race subdued and prevent us seeing what exists outside the box.They wont be giving us the Unified formula either,from the LHC.I have heard it said in intelligence circles, due "interests of national security".But we are all working on that one.One piece of advice is to double check the data from matter and antimatter collisons.? Albeit supersymmetry keeps Michio Kaku happy.