Did God intelligently design the first cell with vast DNA information and microscopic machinery?

In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.Richard Dawkins: Some species of the unjustly called 'primitive' amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1000 Encyclopedia Brittanicas (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 116).

Since the DNA is a computer that far surpasses even the Cray Supercomputer, and it contains both the hardware, the software, the operating system, the program, as well as all the databse data file systems, and since intelligent data is NEVER random (refer to Ziph's Law), then the only POSSIBLE conclusion is that the DNA was intelligently designed by a far greater Intelligence than we can possibly conceive.

The amoeba is a very complex single-celled organism. It is by no means the simplest. There are bacteria that are considerably simpler--in fact, vastly simpler. Then there are the viruses. And as Darwin said, there is no example of complexity that causes the breakdown of the theory of evolution. Your argument fails. Added: Contrary to what another answerer said, Darwin's theory of evolution was not dependent upon his erroneous ideas of genetics. After all, he wrote his book before the science of genetics came into play. His ideas about the evolutionary process were the result of his observations of the similarities and differences he found in various species. Furthermore, what has been found out in genetic studies, and specifically in DNA, has confirmed his basic idea about the evolutionary process. Comparative analysis of DNA shows the evolutionary relationship of species across the spectrum of life to such an extent that Darwin could never have dreamed of. So denigrating Darwin for not knowing how genetics actually works, and using that to denigrate his theory, is grossly perverse and speaks of the dishonesty of those who use such an argument.

In private Darwin (a non-scientist) recognised that his evolution story did not stand up to proper, scientific scrutiny: Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered. ..... Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have to ask myself whether I may not have devoted myself to a phantasy. His doubts were not surprising, because here is Darwin's supposedly, scientific explanation of how one species turns into another: ........... Calling it 'pangenesis, Darwin said that an organ affected by the environment would respond by giving off particles that he called 'gemmules' These particles supposedly helped determine hereditary characteristics. The environment would affect an organ; gemmules would drop out of the organ; and the gemmules would travel to the reproductive organs, where they would affect the cells. (W. Stansfield, Science of Evolution, 1977, p.38). If this is 'science' then so is the story of Alice in Wonderland. This is the great Darwin, the evolutionist's hero. This is the person they idolise and trust for supposedly explaining through 'science' how a microbe could spontaneously arise from a mix of sterile chemicals and become a man. And they have the brass neck to ridicule and laugh at, Intelligent Design and a Supernatural First Cause.

Actually, man has now done that. Read about it: Google: The Economist + And Man Made Life. This was a 15 year project, and creating cells that would metabolize, reproduce, etc, ----CELLS THAT HAD NO PARENTS is as big in biology, as was the discovery of DNA was in Genetics, or the development of the polio vaccine was in Medical Research. YouTube their names, too for some interesting interviews... Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith.

No, God did not intelligently design the first single-celled organisms. First of all, amoebas didn't just pop into existence fully formed. They probably evolved from simpler proteins and simpler cell-like structures. Carl Sagan explained it in Cosmos. You can stream the series from Netflix now. Watch it and learn. Second, some of our cell organelles were found to be more closely related to bacteria than to animals, suggesting that our cells didn't perform those functions until some distant ancestor was infected by a symbiotic bacteria. So here we have a clear example of how cells can become more complex - that they don't just spring into existence being as complex as we see them now. The same is probably true of single-celled organisms. I'm not sure what your point is here, but amoebas are not too complex to have arisen naturally. In fact, evolution explains complexity very well, and there is no reason to believe that amoebas were somehow exempt from the process of evolution.