those aren’t assumptions, they are tested evidences- and again, IC is beyond a simple natural model because nature can’t stepwise build the IC, nor can it provide the info and metainfo needed to keep the species fit and thriving
[[You’ve just constructed a model of “nature”,]]
Well no- because nature is incapable of providing hte necessary ‘non species specific info’ needed to move species beyond hteir own kind- again, this isn’t an assumption, this is proven out in various experiments where mutations- the primary vehicle behind the hypothesis of macroevolution- showed that nature (somehtign hte experiemnts were modelling) can only work on ifo already present (and not very efficiently either-) but can not produce new non species specific info needed to move the species beyond it;’s own kind- it can only really create less fit- less thriving abominations (with occassional neutral effects- which incidently also results in loss of info)
You could perhaps argue that God had a ‘model’ of construction/creation/assembly- but again, you have to argue that His model is ‘above’ nature- supernatural (even htough certain natural laws are used- there’s still the element of supernatural inthat He provided Designed IC and info and metainfo (perhaps not info- but definately metainfo) that nature could not provide-
Will think more on this tonight
Testing evidences that "nature" is not capable of something is like proving a negative. You're implicitly claiming to have tested every possible cause, and saying they all failed.