[Junior]

So, dearheart, how did the "Intelligent Designer" come into being? Was he designed? If so, who designed him and was that person designed? Or, did the "Intelligent Designer" evolve naturally? If so, why would it be possible for him to naturally evolve and not the rest of us?

For all intents and purposes, ID is creationism. Just follow the above questions to their logical conclusions.

[Heartlander]

So, dearheart, how did the "Intelligent Designer" come into being?

You tell me ‘snookems’ – you profess to be a Roman Catholic. Got any theories?

[xzins]

Exactly.

The issue is the appearance of life on earth. It has nothing to do with the identity, location, or origin of the designer.

The observation location: earth.
Item observed: life.
Question: origin.

[beckett]

how did the "Intelligent Designer" come into being? Was he designed? If so, who designed him and was that person designed?

Are you suggesting that Evolutionary Theory solves the problem of infinite regression?

Not at all. In fact, Evolutionary Theory has serious difficulty with the pisant question of abiogenesis. The immeasurably more difficult question of infinite regression, and its sister problem, "Why is there something rather than nothing," are beyond Evolutionary Theory and indeed beyond science itself, no matter how many theorists wrap themselves in weird unprovable guesses about "evolved, innumerable universes."

When we contemplate the eternally silent moment before the Big Bang, we reach our cognitive limit. Limits are unpleasant, I know, but usually more so for our friends on the Left. For myself, a recognition of the limits of humanity is integral to my conservative worldview.

IMHO, to find the answers to the fundamental mysteries of existence we need a little outside help seen "through a glass darkly." It has been my observation over the years that the constraint of linear thinking imposed upon those who worship at the altar of scientism tends to not only darken the glass, but blacken it altogether.