Jeffery Dach, MD claims that this argument is persuasive:

Since every man on the street knows that the computer code that runs a program requires  intelligence for its origin, it is reasonable to make the same inference with the code in DNA, which is even more complicated.  This is Stephen Meyer's point regarding the coded pattern in DNA which (according to Bill Gates) is a even more complicated than the source code for  Microsoft Office.  Both of them require intelligence for their origin, and even the man on the street can see this clearly.

Michael White, PhD, has the following to say about this nonsense:

1) The man on the street is generally not a very good endorsement for the soundness of any particular idea, as Jay Leno has demonstrated on numerous occasions:



2) The argument above essentially asserts that, because we know  human inventions require intelligence to produce, complex systems in nature also require intelligence to produce. But why would we draw that conclusion? The vast majority of complex, information-rich systems we're familiar with (i.e., those in nature, which far outnumber human-designed systems) require no direct, observable intelligence to produce - as far as we can see from direct observation. So, the more reasonable conclusion, if we're going to make inferences about the design of complex systems from our direct observation of the generation of such systems, is that intelligently-designed systems are the exception. Go read the argument quoted above again - nowhere are we given a reason for why we should conclude that human-designed systems (the minority) make a proper analogy for natural systems (the majority).

3) We have some understanding of how natural complexity is produced, and no intelligent input is required. We can observe the evolution of new metabolic pathways. We know how new genes are produced. We understand, to some degree, how a zygote follows a complex developmental process, without any intelligent input.

So Dach's (and Meyer's) argument isn't even really an argument -it's just an assertion, that information and complexity can't be produced without intelligence. So where is the evidence? William Dembski (with his ideas about 'conservation of information', and Michael Behe (with his notion of irreducible complexity) have put forward some ideas, but to date, it's just armchair science - neither of them has bothered to test these ideas against the natural world, in stark contrast to physicists, who have extensively tested their conservation laws. 
 I'm still waiting for the ID people to stop pretending to be scientists: it's time for them to actually go out and do what genuine scientists do.