[Dimensio]

I don't know anyone alive, save for a few nut cases, who think "everything that could possibly be known is known." The argument has to to with probabilities and statistics.

Argument from incredulity is not a statistical argument. It's a blank assertion that a person's inability to comprehend an event is evidence against the event. A statistical argument would rely upon the calculated statistical probability, not the arguer's personal inability to comprehend.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I hardly think the phyisical attributes of DNA to be devoid of statistical/mathematical analysis, and thus arguments pointing toward the reasonable inference of intelligent design.