If your worldview starts with a problematic origin story, everything else is going to be infected.

In Darwin's day, the cell was basically a little blob of Jell-O enclosed by a membrane. That's why Darwin didn't write about the origin of life; he wrote about the origin of species.

Creationism was consciously trying to model the science on a certain interpretation of Genesis. You don't have anything like that in intelligent design.

advances in probability theory, computer science, the concept of information, molecular biology and the philosophy of science.

What needs to happen if you're going to tell an evolutionary story is you have to tell a story of gradual change and at each point there has to be some sort of selective advantage. The evidence is just not there that these processes can do the sort of design work that I am pointing to.

To define a miracle as a violation or suspension or overriding of natural laws is already to presuppose what nature is like (namely, that nature is a closed causal nexus governed by inviolable rules). It is also to impose prior limits on divine action.

without speculating about the nature of the intelligence.

To lift that pall will require a new generation of scholars and professionals who explicitly reject naturalism and consciously seek to understand the design that God has placed in the world,

virtually every discipline and endeavor is presently under a naturalistic pall.