The problem is that there are only two possible competing theories. This issue is completely black and white - binary.
Either things gradually morphed (or "evolved") into more complex things, or someone designed them. There are hybrid theories of course, but few of them are genuine and are used more as a debate tool for "fence post sitters".
Darwinianism is to evolution theory what creationism is to ID. We are really talking evolution vs ID, and those are the only possibilities within the realm of human comprehension that I am aware of.
Both require faith. Proof for one is proof against the other - and vice versa.
"Either things gradually morphed (or "evolved") into more complex things, or someone designed them."
Trouble is that you have the Theory of Evolution wrong. Nothing in that theory requires increased complexity, just change. For example, every mammal is essentially at the same level of complexity, yet all evolved from the earliest proto-mammal. You are not really any more complex than a mouse. Your morphology is different. Your brain is of larger size, but constructed in exactly the same way.
You reproduce in the same way as the mouse. Your young feeds on milk produced by mammary glands.
Sometimes, complexity increases, but that is hardly a requirement of the Theory of Evolution. Change is what the TOE is about.
So, you see, you get a basic fact wrong and that affects your argument in a negative way.
I recommend that you go to your local public library and ask for an introductory book on Evolutionary Theory. That way, you can learn something about it.
"The problem is that there are only two possible competing theories."
Only two that you can think of. To close the door on there being a third is unscientific, even if nobody can think of another at the moment. At one time, people only saw one possible theory: that some supernatural force created life.
You then responded: Only two that you can think of. To close the door on there being a third is unscientific, even if nobody can think of another at the moment. At one time, people only saw one possible theory: that some supernatural force created life.
The problem is, you read something between the lines that is not there when you suggest that I am closing the door. I used present, not future, tense. My statement is correct. It may not be correct at some future date, but it is correct NOW and stands on it’s own.. Your follow up comment implying that since we used to have only one theory, but since we now have two, we may someday have three is one I strongly agree with, although I doubt it so far. But it is, as yet, speculation about an as yet unknown future..
Also, to say that any ID is by definition a supernatural force and then throw out as “unscientific” any theory that involves a supernatural force is not only disingenuous, but unscientific itself. After all, scientists have discussed the concept of actually creating a “parallel” universe. Anything the scientist then did within that contained “natural” universe would be, by definition, supernatural. Yet the man who created that universe is deity only to those who live in the universe he created. That fact does not instantly cause him to “disappear in a puff of logic” (1)
And heaven help the men who live in such a universe that I, a seriously flawed man, created and controlled. I would have a hard time being as free with "grace" as our Father is.
FWIW, I firmly believe that if the Lord waits long enough, we will actually achieve that ability, or one like it.
(1): “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” – Douglas Adams