"Pure chance organizing basic elements into the vast interactive systems evident now, plant, animal and insect?"
The laws of nature aren't random. Chemical reactions are not random. Natural selection isn't random. Your premises are all faulty.
ID is a *gaps* claim; any present gap in our knowledge is filled in with *the designer did it*. It is an unnecessary proposition that adds nothing to our understanding of the world. It's also untestable. While it may be true, there is no way to differentiate between a *designed* feature and a naturally occurring one in nature. That being the case, Occam's razor demands that ID be discarded until such time it makes a testable claim.
Occam's razor cuts for me, not you.