Not presumptuous.
Of course it is. The depths of the fallacies of that kind of presumption are analyzed quite well here: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance.
Order and complexity are a result of intelligence.
Sometimes, yes. They are also often the result of many natural processes, including evolutionary ones. Sort of "forgot" that part, didn't you?
That's the evidence that's staring everyone in the face that some refuse to see or acknowledge.
No, what's staring everyone in the face that "some refuse to see or acknowledge" is that natural processes are known for a fact to be able to do the kinds of things (i.e. increase order, and increase complexity) you keep claiming, incorrectly, only an intelligence can do.
What's also staring everyone in the face that "some refuse to see or acknowledge" is that there is a vast amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines that the elements of modern life are indeed the result of evolutionary processes.
What's also staring everyone in the face that "some refuse to see or acknowledge" is that if complexity can only be the result of intelligence, then your own hypothesis (God) has severe problems, since that complex intelligence itself must have been the result of another intelligence (since you claim that complexity can ONLY exist by being formed by a prior intelligence), and so on, and so on, to an infinite regress of absurdity. You undercut your own premise, your own explanation is self-contradictory and unworkable.
Science depends on it and we are expected to believe that what goes on in a science lab is a result of intelligence and design.
I'm sorry you misunderstand science so badly, and file to grasp how science actually works.
But then we are told that the order and complexity just happened by itself and there's absolutely no basis for that conclusion.
There's a vast amount of basis for that conclusion. Too bad you're so busy stomping your feet and declaring what you'd like to be the case instead of taking the time to actually go learn what that basis really is.
There's nothing to support it.
Nothing within *your* knowledge and understanding, certainly.
It never ceases to amaze me how little the "ID" folks actually know about the topics they attempt to critique. Wouldn't a prudent person bother to learn about a subject before pontificating upon it or making blanket claims about it?
Why did you address this reply to me?
Turtles all the way up as well as down?
LOL!
Now you're being silly. ;)
Data-dump placemarker.