all well thought out concepts but they seem to cluster about only two arguments. and the opposing argument you propose has no evidence at all (even your conceptual "evidence" is, as you know, "outcome based"). I deal with math models all the time and, unless Im just working on "back calculating" whats been discovered;
(like kriging or variogramming of ore deposits that are based on minimal data) or using the model to solve for on or, at most, three independents,) ITS ALL CRAP. Models in my world are often fraudulent re-creation s of someones faulty reality.
Fluid flow models are the worst. Yet they qre used as bases for spending billions of dollars in resource claims. (And it becomes two experts fighting it out in a civil suit where truth i not a critical outcome, its whoever SOUNDS most convincing) BUT THATS ANOTHER ARGUMENT ENTIRELY
As Ive said to you before, many times life (and several other non-living states) are predominantly closed thermodynamic systems and for their brief existence in their highest state, LIVE AGAINST THE CHEMICAL GRADIENT OF ENTROPY. THAT FACT, coupled with Malthusian properties (wherein the living state enjoys the many benefits of exponential growth) doesnt make a naturalistic evolutionary (no gods needed) difficult.
Another feature of your "wish list" is based on a supposition thaT we have NEVER created the living state. or that "the fossil record is false".
1. We actually hve, in the lab developed living state molecules that demonstrate several of the features through which we define life. (Not all t the same time it true) but weve achieved replication, nutrition transfer and energy , cell wall structures and respiration.
Our problems now are more leading us to recognize that there were, perhaps, many roads to sustainable life and perhaps we wont be left without a good model. We will NOT suffer from lacks of candidate reactions, we will, instead suffer from an overabundance of competing modes .
2. The fossil record does give you guy big problems because it does show the interdependence of living forms, and their propensity to evolve new and wonderful forms as their environments pressure them to do so. Biogeography i doubly troubling to youse all because it demonstrates how so many unique forms can evolve separated by very few kilometers (like two cavern systems in West Virginia can show 4 different sppecies of trogs three of which are unique to cave system 1 and the lst is unique to cave system 2. And they are each new species and higher. That demonstrates a fairly incompetent IDer, ho didnt know about the creation of two different cave systems until AFter the Illinoian Glacial epoch. Whenever you sy that evidence supports ID as much as it does a naturalistic interpretation, thats when you really need to deny the validity of the fossil record and even more, you have to deny the stratigraphic record an"Strata Smith's "Map the Changed the World"
As Dr Pross said about life, that Its like what Woody Allen said
I woulda Asked you, instead, What is it you find compelling to the Intelligent Designer story thats NOT religiously based??