Of coarse you disagree.
And the idea of complexity is not a faulty presumption. It's quite logical. A space shuttle is a complex piece of machinery. But an individual cell is more complex than that.
Nobody would look at the shuttle and think it is part of some grand biological scheme. It is a construct and an obvious one. And men instinctively know that. The thing has legs and a nose; but, nobody in their right mind would try to feed it like a horse.
This very capacity among humans to discern when things don't quite belong is played upon in early learning. Whether on purpose or not, it is used. Kids can instinctively look at groupings of things and tell you which in a group doesn't belong even if they can't tell you why. It's a basic sort of instinctive logic/reasoning. And I remember it being used when I was in school as early as Kindergarten. ID expands upon that and attempts to explain it scientifically as a starting point. And it is right. It's so right that it was relied upon for teaching long before they approached the problem. But since it threatens evolution, suddenly it makes no sense and must be wrong. Of course you disagree.
You also can't explain a paraconformity when it's inconvenient.
The ID crowd isn't afraid of being wrong. Nor are they afraid of what you think. And they understand that answers to questions are about more than what you can roughly postulate - however absurd. There were many approaches to flight before someone, namely the Wright brothers, came up with the right one. How did we know it was right - we saw it work. We observed it. Just as we observed the theories and ideas of every crackpot on the planet who tried unsuccessfully. Evolutionists have been designing cardboard wings for years and telling us 'this is how flight will work'. The problem is, people kinda know better. Just as they have learned better on the cancer front. Today, eggs cause cancer. Tomorrow they won't. And two years from now, they'll not only cause cancer again; but, will cause some new as yet unheard of condition which will later be found wanting and be rejected.. because science has lost it's way.
People have learned they cannot trust it because the people doing science barely know themselves what they are doing. They can't explain systems in front of them that they can observe with any amount of reliability, yet they can explain things they can't observe that happened before any of us were born with absolute factual capacity such that they set it in stone and pretend it is reality... it begs comprehension and it instinctively sets off alarms with people. In other words, people aren't as dumb as these high IQ priests of their own religion would like to think.
Fortunately, ID approaches people more openly, more directly and with a sense and understanding that doesn't offend or assume people to be stupid and gullible. They approach with a common sense that rather considers people to be quite bright. And in truth, people are quite bright as a rule. Many just don't apply themselves.