Proof of Design

Perhaps complex adaptations like the eye constitute proof of a creator God or an intelligent designer, and could not possibly be the result of evolution, even given that it has some determinate processes and is well-confirmed. Given the existence of all the complexity we see, isn't it more likely that it was designed or created to be that way? What is being suggested here is that, given the evidence at hand, creation by God or intelligent design is more likely than evolution, which is a likelihood argument. To pursue the likelihood argument, go to Likelihood.

On the other hand, you might think that outcomes such as the arising of the eye, given that they arose by evolution are not just unlikelier than if they arose by design --- they are just plain unlikely period. Therefore isn't evolution as a hypothesis unlikely too?

To clarify: if a hypothesis predicts an outcome to be very unlikely, and yet the unlikely outcome comes to pass, one might think that this certainly is evidence that the hypothesis is probably not correct. But that argument is fallacious; for a counterexample, go to Unlikely Hypothesis. (You will still be able to go to Likelihood after that.)