Life with purpose

I agree with all this, but at the least panspermia is up for scientific investigation. Is there some code in DNA that indicate an artificial hand? Is there some commonality between our own DNA and the DNA we might find of life (or former life) upon Venus or Mars?

At the very least, if panspermia is true then we'd rationally be more inclined to pick the religion of the aliens who did the seeding than any of our own religions. [Which isn't to say that their faiths are necessarily more grounded in reality.] Probably why IDers keep up throwing up their hands and pretending the identity of the designer is beyond scientific investigation.

In the same way that physicists who dismiss even the possibility of their science confirming or at least indicating an Idealist interpretation are being irrational or deliberately deceptive, so to with IDers.

Concerning the origin of life, a new documentary has been released on the improbability of an undirected semi-random search process (i.e. a Darwinian mechanism) of being the answer to this mystery. From an article at https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...00k-views/ . This new film is titled Origin: Design, Chance and the First Life on Earth (Illustra Media).

Some will discount this without considering its scientific merit merely because it is based on the work of DI scientists who generally (though with some notable exceptions) have a Christian and politically conservative background, but it would be interesting to get some sort of actual plausible rejoinder from the Darwinists to the points made in the quotes below. So far I'm not aware of any.

Excerpts from the film on one of the key issues in the OOL problem: the probability of finding in total protein configuration space and creating just a single properly folded chain of left-handed amino acids to form a single specialized protein molecule, by an undirected Darwinian process (quotes from the new documentary):

"Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10**74+45+45, or one in 10**164 (Stephen Meyer). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10**164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
.........................................
Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against (the usual Darwinian model of) a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence “lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability” (Douglas Axe). For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10**140 and 1 in 10**164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids.
.........................................
“Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”"