Do you think this is a strong argument for intelligent design?

As a software engineer, this is so obvious and evident. Programs (information) don't write themselves, if you need any new function, we as the programmer must intelligently prepare the information so it functions that way. Random mutations will never generate useful software programs. Otherwise we could have just design a "random mutation foundation app" which should generate all the useful apps we need. (but there is still intelligent design elements in this scenario, which is the mechanism of the foundational app). We humans created AI to help us create new things that are good, just like how our creator created us to help him make the world better. The parallel here is uncanny.

I was aware of this argument for many years before my conversion. I thought it was interesting and cool, and because I like to puncture pretentions, I got it out whenever I encountered a biologist. I liked to watch them squirm—nobody ever had a good response to it. The best they could muster was contemptuous dismissal. Still, all that immediately and obviously follows *if* you think there is such a thing as irreducible complexity is that one aspect of evolutionary theory is wrong. I thought it was very interesting that evolutionary theory has this serious problem with it. But I didn't conclude that God exists, because "God exists" doesn't immediately follow.

Yes, but many people have an emotional & philosophical wall that doesn't allow the power of it to penetrate. But It does become a "stone in the shoe" for many others who are less wedded to an anti-god mindset.

Yes. Also, how did the “first cell” survive? Could not have had all the necessary functions, not to mention the ability to self replicate.

Yes... but. Belief in materialism isn't based on what's logical or obvious... The Achilles heel of materialism is that it is soulless. Music is the language of the soul. The flavor of food can enliven the spirit. Words are capable of stirring the heart.

Sure is. IC is a huge barrier to a gradualist pathway from one biological system to a new one with a different function.

Yes, I think it is very strong. I'm Old Earth Creationist, not ID, but I use this argument.

Irreducible as pointed out by Michael Behe and specified complexity by William Dembski pretty much covers it. Plus it's kind hard for evolutionists to explain away DNA through random acts of nature.