[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . there is no way to make a weighted choice between the two options.

Sure there is. And it is a weighted, subjective choice. My choice, and the choice of millions of reasonable people, is to infer from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws that it is best explained by intelligent design. What is the other "option?"

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sure there is."

Now you're disagreeing with yourself, as you have previously said there WAS NO way to make a weighted choice.

"And it is a weighted, subjective choice."

It is not science then. Subjective evidence has no weight.

"My choice, and the choice of millions of reasonable people, is to infer from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws that it is best explained by intelligent design. What is the other "option?""

The other choice is the one YOU said had the same weight, the idea that you can explain everything without a Designer(God). If "neither can be chosen over the other" as absolutely determinative of objective reality, then the only way to choose is some subjective evidence. Subjective evidence is automatically OUTSIDE of science.