The process by which a tropical wave organizes into a hurricane is fairly well understood, has been observed repeatedly, and is reproducible in computer simulations that merely set the initial conditions and allow interaction based on the laws of physics, without any sort of framework or plan.
It's not necessary to invoke a "designer" to explain the formation of a hurricane, any more than it's needed to explain lightning or myriad other physical processes.
I can't prove or disprove there was an intelligent designer because that question falls out of science. It's only that one isn't necessary to explain that particular physical process.
If people simply threw up their hands and gave up and said "Gee, God musta done it" regarding either the formation or tracks of tropical systems we wouldn't have the complex computer models that we have now that do a generally good and ever-improving job of forecasting them.
But you stated there was none implying you had provided proof or the like, which I said was a non-sequitar.
You stand corrected by your own admission.
"After five years' work I allowed myself to speculate on the subject, and drew up some short notes; these I enlarged in 1844 into a sketch of the conclusions..."
."For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question"
Darwin himself states that his theory is speculation and someone considering the same subjects could come to an opposite conclusion.
It requires faith to believe his theory, therefore it is a Religion.
I'm learning here. How did the laws of physics come into being?
Thanks to the intelligent design of computers and software.
If the known laws of physics are not a framework, I don't know what is. Care to reformulate?
Why do you insist that "God musta done it" and "we know scientifically how it happened" are mutually exclusive? They aren't. The big point re evolution is that natural selection does not explain all the "information" and diversity out there. The evidence for it is weak.