Your wrote "Finally, the "argument from ignorance" doesn't mean someone's making an ignorant argument -- it means that they are invoking the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Schützenberger employs this again and again, generally in the form, "I can't conceive that evolution could produce such complexity, thus it clearly couldn't have"."
I find this rather amusing. Creationists could say the same thing about atheistic evolutionists stand against creationist paradigms. However, be that as it may, I have studied formal logic and I don't agree with you when you say he has committed a logical fallacy. In my opinion, this doesn't apply to what he said. His points are valid.
I wrote - "Probability and mathematics are much easier to test via the scientific method than evolution."
You wrote - "Whenever a biological issue is understood well enough to allow a valid mathematical or probabilistic analysis, evolution has passed it with flying colors."
The allgorithms these folks have used to demonstrate evolution are flawed - they let too many assumptions of evolutionary theory stand. If you weight your equations to favor something - assuming it true - you have biased the result. However, I readily admit that I would have to differ to someone more knowledgable about computer allogoritms like AG to answer this.
Spencer "cheerfully acknowledged" that the hypothesis of evolution had "serious difficulties." But, he said, "save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis or no hypothesis." Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Psychology, 1896, 1:466.The truly funny thing is that the philosophical naturalists of the latter 19th and early 20th centuries were so successful in conflating the doctrines of naturalism and evolution together with biological empiricism that many people today think, erroneously, that the essence of science, any field of science, is materialist monism ("The Cosmos is all there is, was, or ever shall be." paraphrase of Carl Sagan). And they could probably even read the following without batting an eye over its sheer intellectual stupidity:
"I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it. But...I would very strongly urge upon you [Lyell] that it is the logical development of Uniformitarianism, and that its adoption would harmonize the spirit of Paleontology with that of Physical Geology." Thomas Henry Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1903, 3 volumes, 1:252.
"The possibility, ever so distant, of banishing from nature its seeming purpose, and putting blind necessity everywhere in the place of final causes, appears, therefore, as one of the greatest advances in the world of thought." Emil du Bois-Reymond, 1904, cited in J.T. Merz's A history of European thought in the ninetheenth century. 4 volumes, Dover Pub., 1:435.
Darwin's theory "turns the Creator--and his occasional intervention in the revolutions of the earth and in the production of species--without any hesitation of of doors, inasmuch as it does not leave the smallest room for the agency of such a Being." (emphasis added)--Karl Vogt.