[VadeRetro]

Your 194 is a strawman of the Occam's Razor dilemma. Occam's Razor is variously stated as "When two or more hypotheses cannot be disproven, choose the simplest." Or, "Do not unnecessarily multiply conjecture." So here's a more realistic statement of the match-up.

Evolution:

1) We can see populations changing in undirected, natural ways that tend to be adaptive.
2) We understand important details of these changes.
3) Past changes are the result of these processes.

ID:

1) We can see populations changing in undirected, natural ways that tend to be adaptive BUT NEVER MIND THAT, THAT'S JUST MICROEVOLUTION AND IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.
2) We understand some BUT WE'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE REST OF IT NEVER NEVER NEVER IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE WHAT ARE WE NUTS TO PRESUME WE CAN UNDERSTAND CREATION? WE'RE JUST THE CREATED STUFF WE'RE NOBODY.
3) Therefore somebody, God or an alien civization, has been running around making stuff happen although there's no direct evidence of same.

[Southack]

"Your 194 is a strawman of the Occam's Razor dilemma. Occam's Razor is variously stated as "When two or more hypotheses cannot be disproven, choose the simplest."

Post #194 does just what Occam's Razor suggests. It is not a strawman.