While I am convinced that order and complexity are evidences of intelligence and design, I am also convinced that randomness is not evidence of lack of intelligence or design.
The world is chock full of order and complexity that are known to have intelligence as it’s cause. Sometimes we know who the designer is, sometimes just that it’s a human; intelligent nevertheless. This establishes a precedent that can lead one to conclude that where order and complexity exist and the designer is not known, a designer was necessary.
Likewise, randomness is no evidence of lack of intelligence or design. Randomness is used by people in something as simple as a random number generator. It can be designed in systems where variety or unpredictability is needed.
There is no situation where randomness can be used to demonstrate lack of intelligence or design where it is not assumed to start with. The best anyone can do is say that they don’t know if there was intelligence behind either the order and complexity, or the randomness.
You can’t support an argument by assuming the conclusion. It’s not logical to say that because there’s no evidence for a designer, you have to assume there isn’t one and then say that randomness is therefore proof that there’s no designer.
Evos are always looking for *scientific* evidence only for a designer, yet they provide no evidence to disprove a creator, nor do they give any idea of what they would consider *scientific* evidence to show one. What is offered as patently obvious to the most casual observer, that is order and complexity, is considered *unscientific* for some reason. Both can be observed, measured, tested for. What else do scientists want?
And also if randomness is observed but order is not, it does not equal that there is no order. It may well be indications to depth width and scope limitations inherent in the observer and/or his tools/methods, or his base assumptions.