Intelligent Design v. Undirected, Purposeless Naturalism

Conviction that a living cell is the product of a personal Creator who is of a higher order of existence (life) than can be true for any conglomeration of cells is an Eureka! moment; it is a moment when a human knows he has encountered another mind belonging to a higher order of being than even his own life form (man) that he has studied, but which study has given him that insight which is an "of-course" moment, as in "Of course, every house is constructed by someone" – an entirely logical conclusion. Enough evidence stands in place to make reasonable inference that irreducible complexity (IC) and intelligent design (ID) are manifested in a living cell, enough to where the materialist, if not yet pushed once again over the brink into ignotum per ignotius (a thing true of those who believed in Orthogenesis) appears to be currently left with our perception that he is desperately struggling against his admitting that he has only (an empty) hope that data yet unknown to science will eventually fill the gap for making reasonable the inference that Undirected Naturalism/Purposelessness is better explanation than appeal to the mind of a Creator for the existence of living cells in the Universe. Materialistic biologists mouth no reasonable inference as respects ultimate causation for all the pertinent biological data gathered to date through the scientific method when they say that belief in a Creator is not a demonstrably reasonable concept.

For a thought experiment, let's say that I and another human soul had been whisked away in a time machine from the Dark Ages to the present day. If we soon thereafter find a mechanical watch on the ground, why do I not reason `This object might be fruit that has dropped off some nearby tree where once it was growing?' Or why not this: `I should examine very, very closely the outer, crystalline face of this object because, after all, the crystal's integrity may not be such as would withstand intrusion of particulate matter via submergence in particle-laden water, and solid matter of some as-yet unknown nature may have washed onto the surface underneath the crystal so that it settled out in a pattern that shows an even, and arithmetically peculiar placement of the numerals 1 through 12 in a closed circle?' Do I say at this point `That is unreasonable because the object does not bear evidence that it has been on the ground for time enough as might be reasonably required for me to think that such a scenario is plausible, this even should I discover that the crystal is so compromised as to allow some particulate matter to settle on the surface beneath the crystal so that it might then deceptively appear to be a designed, arithmetical placement of numerals visible on its inner face?'

If I feel confident in dismissing as unreasonable any appeal to the astronomically remote possibility that what has been at work here are certain naturalistic forces bearing a less complex nature/identity than what is exemplified in the existence of the object (which object also has "hands" that have movement in a circle above placement of the numerals; also have movement in the same, predictable direction; and also have movement with a rate that is steady but peculiar to each hand), then have I acted in a manner that is illogical and pernicious to some scientific discipline when I conclude in favor of the only alternative reasonably left us, namely, that the object has an intelligent maker, and is therefore more complex in its existence than is so for the object at hand? No; indeed, many scenarios proffered as being worthy of our suspending judgment against them are really an insult to intelligence. Given the fact, however, that we humans have very many willfully ignorant ones among us, perhaps I should not be so surprised that I have stated something contrary to the wishes of my companion who, in the event, asserts his naturalistic belief that the object is without design, designer, and purpose for its existence, but is entirely the product of forces having less complexity than what we see exemplified in the object at hand. He states, "Just because we are presently ignorant as respects how certain purposeless (nontelelogical), undirected naturalistic forces could have shaped the object and given it a function that, as we both concur, allows for our using it to "tell time" with greater precision than what is afforded by a water clock, should not be taken by us as support for the conclusion that an intelligence has been at work for production of the object." I have to ask him What, then, in your opinion, would have to be true for the object in order for us to conclude reasonably that the object is, in fact, a "time piece," and was so designed by an intelligent designer for the purpose of our using it to mark the passage of time from one event to another? I, however, can confidently use the information at hand in order to predict that the object's maker has mastery over a greater amount of information/knowledge than what either I or my fellow traveler had stored away before we were whisked away from the Dark Ages.