So basically what you're saying is that ID'ers look at the natural world, whether it be through archaeology, childbirth, etc., observe its huge complexity, use mathematics to calculate the improbability of the complexity and then claim that it's too complex to have evolved?
Which is far better than the alternative way of deciding what is and what is not which goes like this:
Seeing all this stunning complexity, evolutionists didn't want to hear about the improbability of it occurring by chance because they already
knew instinctively that evolution
did in fact do it (like the inverse of goddidit)and that it
did all happen by chance and, of course, an enormous amount of
time(that magical ingredient which improved chance's chances of getting it right.)Knowing this as fact and all agreeing that this was so, evolutionists shrugged off the probability calculations as 'unconvincing','unscientific'and 'just not cricket'.
That seems like the only tenet of ID science: too complex, so Goddidit.
Which is better than the 'very complex but we know that evolution did it' or 'has the appearance of design but that can't be because we know that evolution did it.'
If however, ID'ers could provide physical evidence of a creator God
Or if evolution could provide a testable mechanism for major evolutionary change -then there would be no need for this debate and we could all go home.
™ Version 4.2
