Probability.
Don't have much time, but the Big Things are clearly powerful evidence. As cited in Dr. Walter Remine's book, "The Biotic Message" (1993) [Still the most powerful mathematical critique yet today, as conceded by Gould and Hawking, and largely the basis for many of the lesser challenges] :
E.g., The structure of the universe itself is wildly improbable: the Big Bang itself is improbable (why has it not repeated?), and this creation event has left us evidence that it happened in a rather precise way, the resulting universe's parameters and behavior exhibit numerous peculiar properties necessary for life. For example if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different then stars would be unable to burn hyrdogen and helium. If the relative strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces were slightly different, then carbon atoms could not exist in nature and therefore humans could not exist.
If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size (Hawking, 1988 p. 12)
The cosmos threatened to recollapse within a fraction of a second or else to expand so fast that galaxy formation would be impossibule. To avoid these disasters its rate of expansion at early instants needed to be fine tuned to perhaps one part in 10 to 55th (which 10 followed by 54 zeros). (Leslie, 1989 p. 3)
Fundamental parameters - the strength of the nuclear weak force, nuclear strong force, electromagnetism, and gravity; the expansion rate of the universe and the charge and masses of fundamental particles - all had to be fine tuned to extraordinarily tight tolerances. Remarkably, the values of these fundamental parmaters seem to have been finely adjusted to make life possible. ( See Leslie, 1989, p. 2-6; Hawking, 1988 p. 125) . How could these highly improbable detail be explained? Conclusion: The universe appears to be specially designed for life by a rational mind. Many people read the evidence precisely this way.The universe itself seems to be important evidence for an intelligent designer. Freeman Dyson (1979, p 245-253) correctly refers to these improbabilities as an argument from design, and this is evidence that "mind plays an essential role in the functioning of the universe." (p. 251)
Nowhere does Dyson mention the naturalist's last-ditch concoction, the anthropic principle (just random chance out of the infinity of universes lacking such properties in the multiverse), which is not a science, as it is neither explanatory nor testable and is disproven as a tautology.
The probabilities of the BIG THINGS are evidence of design. And the naturalists can't even lay a glove on Remine's theoretical treatment of the issue...
Then, as far as biological evidence, I think Probability again makes it rather clear which way the evidence points...as the rats are deserting the sinking ship of natural selection, or it's jazzed-up "random-leap" variants. Here is the story of one such major player showing intellectual honesty and bailing out:
Famed atheist concedes: evidence points to God
New York, Dec. 10, 2004 (CWNews.com) - Antony Flew, the British scholar who for years has been the world's most noteworthy philosophical proponent of atheism, has conceded that scientific evidence points to the existence of God.
Flew-- a prolific writer and energetic lecturer who has advanced atheist arguments throughout his long academic career-- made his dramatic concession in a video presentation on scientific evidence for the existence of God. In the video-- based on a conference held in New York in May of this year-- Flew said that the latest biological research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved."
Early this year, writing in Philosophy Now magazine, Flew had indicated that his commitment to atheism was wavering. He wrote: "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
Flew credited a Texas Catholic, Roy Varghese, with helping to persuade him that biological research points to the workings of an intelligent creator. Varghese, the author of The Wonder of the World , organized the May conference at which Flew first questioned his own atheistic position, and produced the video in which the 81-year-old scholar abandoned that stance.
Flew-- whose 1984 essay, "The Presumption of Atheism," fixed his place as the leading proponent of that view-- emphasizes that he has not accepted Christianity. He said: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian, and far and away from the God of Islam." He likened his current position to the deism of Thomas Jefferson, explaining that he is now sympathetic to the researchers who theorize about an "intelligent design" in the working of creation.
Antony Flew conceded that many of his philosophical followers will be shocked by his announcement. But he told Associated Press: "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Time for you guys to abandon your Evolutionists Toolkit, and fess up.
Placemarker.
Give me the probablility of rolling a six using an unknown number of dice with each die having an unknown number of sides.
Anthony Flew lost his faith in atheism. Interesting. Are you aware that belief in the Theory of Evolution does not require atheism?
Your whole post consists of a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. Probability is an abstract concept, not a fact.
"Intelligent Design" is a conclusion for which there is no evidence. As you state:
Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
First you have to have some evidence, of which ID has none. Just because Antony Flew proved he was an idiot doesn't prove anything else other than he is an idiot. He didn't submit any such evidence, just the fallacious conclusion. Maybe he wasn't so smart to begin with.
As I said, One Wet Iota. Just one.
"the Big Bang itself is improbable (why has it not repeated?),..."
Good question. Why has it not been repeated?
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. To claim that it is improbable that the Universe exists as it is, is Reification. "Improbability" is an abstract concept held by human beings, not a extant fact.
The Universe exists, therefore it is entirely probable, no matter the faulty opinions of some men.
The rest of your post amounts to the same, and isn't worth my time.