EDIT: I am adding the original question to which I am responding.
@Swamidass>> I have yet to see a design argument that does not include theological premises. Every one I have looked at is burdened with theological premises.
@Eddie>Examples, please, Joshua, from the books I mentioned, with page numbers indicating where the theological premises are inserted into the scientific discussion in such a way as to be essential to the argument for design? [emphasis added]
The common argument that “evolution is so improbable as to be impossible”, and leading to any conclusion that might include God includes a tacit theological premise, or simple a tactic premise otherwise.
By way of example I characterize this argument as “The odds of XXX occuring by random chance is 10^{-234}, which is less that the 10^{-150} probability bound, therefore the cause must be YYY”. This statement “The odds of XXX” is generally presented in the same form and interpretation as a Bayes Factor (a Bayes Factor is a ratio of two probabilities). However, if/when I can dissect any real calculation out of this, the odds “10^{-234}” are actually a probability rather than a ratio.
To get the odds ratio interpretation of a Bayes factor we need something like this:
Odds = P[X|Design] \over P[X|evolution]
But we have only one number to plug in here, which is being interpreted as both probability and odds:
10^{-234} = P[X|Design] \over 10^{-234 }
… and solving for P[X|Design] leads to …
P[X|Design] = 10^{-234 } \over 10^{-234 } = 1.0
… which reveals the tacit prior assumption that “Design” is the only possible conclusion. Such arguments can only conclude the tacit assumption. If the designer is asserted to be God, this qualifies as a theological assumption, otherwise it’s just a circular argument.
I confess to playing fast and loose with the math here, but I contend that any attempt to formalize the statement “evolution is so improbable as to be impossible” will lead to revelation of a similar tacit assumption.