It is not essentially an argument from incredulity, and even if it were, it makes sense. Is it "arguing from incredulity" when one argues that Mount Rushmore must be the result of intelligent design because of the number of chisel strokes evidenced on its face? Yes. But it is a reasonable argument nonetheless.
The numbers and probabilities involved with the amount of information currently bouncing around in the universe in such organized fashion as to be able to a.) comprehend it, b.) organize it to some degree, and c.) communicate about it, speak for themselves. Incredulity has no effect on plain numbers and probabilities, and that is what the proponents of ID are working with.
I can't think of a way for evolution to have happened naturally, therefore it must have been designed.
The fact is, I can easily think of a way for evolution to have happened, but I am disinclined to bring the baggage of "naturally" as germane to studying the processes available for observation and testing. That little purse seems to fit you comfortably and you wear it proudly. Some of us can do without it.
Well, I'm afraid it is. And that you think it would make sense if it were a logical fallacy indicates you not only don't know what I'm talking about, you don't know what you're talking about.
Is it "arguing from incredulity" when one argues that Mount Rushmore must be the result of intelligent design because of the number of chisel strokes evidenced on its face? Yes. But it is a reasonable argument nonetheless.
There are other lines of evidence (pun intended), to follow in the Mount Rushmore case. It's not an argument from incredulity, although someone profoundly silly could convert it into one. ("No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" - H. L. Mencken).
Incredulity has no effect on plain numbers and probabilities, and that is what the proponents of ID are working with.
They're making up numbers to suit themselves and applying them to a situation no one knows anything about. They then use the numbers to bolster ... an argument from incredulity.
If we go back in time to your great-great-grandparents, the odds against your being born are astronomically against. Unless you want to argue that you don't exist, you're not going to get very far.
Come to think of it, you'll probably get a lot farther arguing you don't. Makes for better conversation at cocktail parties.
The fact is, I can easily think of a way for evolution to have happened, but I am disinclined to bring the baggage of "naturally" as germane to studying the processes available for observation and testing.
What's the scientific test that would demonstrate the supernatural?
That little purse seems to fit you comfortably and you wear it proudly. Some of us can do without it.
And some of us feel the same way about smothering science with either nonsense (in the case of ID), or religion.
And please don't attempt to convert this into an argument against religion. It's not. It's an argument against religion restricting science.