I think there's a difference between "watches and biological life".
The Probabilty of there being an Intelligent Designer part 2. (some responses)
bomh said (In response to the O.P.):
Just some thoughts..
First off, i dont want to put words in the mouth of Elsewhere, but i believe the thread was a very odd mix of the cosmological argument and a whole lot of other stuff. I believe the main points Elsewhere put forth are valid, but it is not meant as a 'strict' but rather an intuiative argument.
Regardless of whether or not it is classified as a "strict" or "intuative" argument it is not a valid argument against actual ID theory, since it omits the important fact that ID theory always has had specifying criteria such as " organized complexity that has an origin," being best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by the result purley naturalistic processes. Only by omitting these or other explicit or implicit specifying criteria, can opponets claim that ID thoery some also (to be consistent) "requires" the creator to himself have had his "own creator".
For example there is nothing in the statement that "the origin of organized complexity from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by purely naturalistic processes" that also requires the designer to also be himself composed of organized parts, or even to also have an origin. Hence, there is no necessity by the same argument for the designer to have his "own" designer.
Perhaps the poster "elsewhere" is simply unfamiliar with actual ID arguments from theorists, and didn't realize that his reasoning chain thusly made errors. To be more accurate of ID theory his first point (listed in the O.P.) should be something more like:
"1. People who support ID say they do because of how complex life and the universe are. They say such complexity certainly must have been created by a higher being, because they believe that "organized complexity that has an origin from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than by purely naturalistic processes"
I dont think anyone would claim ID is a-priori illogical.
Oh yes they would !!!
As a matter of fact, the claim that ID is a priori "illogical" and "self - refuting" has been one of the main arguments used by evolutionists on this very forum (and by Dawkins in the God Delusion).
It never seems to bother them much however that they accept ID as a logical, valid explanation for their posts here, (and the computer that they post on).