You clearly know what the scientific method is, and I applaud you for that. You certainly cannot test God scientifically. You can see His necessity in probability.
I misspoke with I said evolved from chimps, just as you did when you said "while the chip remained".
I believe that mutation and natural selection can produce different species--even though that has not been observed. But it cannot account for the evolution of the human brain given the mechanisms of evolution, the time given, and the condiitions.
Do a little thought experiment:
how much time was there between emergance of our proto-ancestor and homo sapiens
what are the selective pressures
how often are beneficial genes passed on in germ cells, factoring in the low birthrate of hominids
how often are beneficial mutations in the brain--a most sensitive organ
if the mutations in the brain were enough to make mating with other members impossible (ie speciation), then what is the probability that two members of this new species would evolve in each others short lifetime, make contact, produce offspring that had the positive mutation, that offspring survived, and so on
how many mutations were necessary to differential our brain potential from our proto-ancestor
I'd like to share how I view scientific knowledge versus belief in God. On the x-axis there is sci knowledge. On the y-axis there is belief in God. At first when knowledge increases, belief decreases; you metaphorically realize that God does not push the sun across the sky. Then as knowledge continues to increase and you look deeply into the mechanisms and observational evidence (not hypothetical evidence like math-based quantum mechanics) your belief in God increases as the more you know the more God needs to be a part of it.
I am not saying ID is a theory, but it is a plausible philosophy. It should not stifle scientific research by allowing for the "who cares; God did it" course of action--but it is certainly not irrational or its evidence unscientific.
Learning science is just like reading the paper--you need to have a discernible eye. Just because NewScientist.com says that "String Theory helps explain origin of matter" doesn't mean that is agreed with or even in a large minority seen as accurate. That is one researcher who was interviewed. You need to look at consenses and trends.