[Rudder]

Complex systems analysis in general will share many of the same means and outcomes. ID tries to address something that evolutionary theory doesn't, and that is a pattern in the rules of the Universe themselves (e.g. math, physics) are appear human like to a human.

A collection of totally random events produces a predictable distribution. The human interpreter automatically seeks patterns which are understandable to human terms, even if they are known to be inaccurate. That, to me, is the beauty of science because it seeks accuracy despite the bias of the observer.

[nanomid]

even if they are known to be inaccurate.

You are obviously an objectivist and you assume your own argument. I'm not of the von Mises school of probability.

There's no more beauty to science than to a leaf, each demonstrating some variant of complexity conservation.
Science is nothing more than compressing the bias for humans to understand anyway. Most of 'real science' that exists can't fit inside a human's brain case, and only poorly approximated by add multitudes of them.

To even stipulate that sufficient rules regarding the Universe can be intuited by an average human is a facet of ID.