For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.
You:
If it is your intention to imply that the two statements are mutually exclusive, I must disagree. For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.
What, no hugs? Ah well. My tagline points out (too briefly) that some ID advocates use the remarkable congeniality of the universe as evidence that a Design is at work. At the same time, other ID advocates point to what they claim are the incredibly high odds against the appearance of life to indicate that a Design is at work. Your "cake ingredients in the kitchen" analogy is good, but it doesn't really undercut the "heads ID wins, tails ID wins" of congeniality to life and improbability of life as both leading to the ID conclusion.
[Unrequited hug.]