Mathematician Granville Sewell offers some thoughts at American Spectator about the evidence for design in the universe:

… in recent years, as scientific research has continually revealed the astonishing dimensions of the complexity of life, especially at the microscopic level, support for Darwin’s theory has continued to weaken, and since the publication in 1996 of Darwin’s Black Box by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a growing minority of scientists have concluded, with Behe, that there is no possible explanation for the complexity of life without intelligent design. If scientists can spend time and money developing tools and algorithms to detect dubious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence in weak signals from outer space, why are they required to ignore the evidence in living cells where design practically leaps out at you?

But what exactly, do these “ID scientists” believe? There is no general agreement among advocates of intelligent design as to exactly where, when, or how design was manifested in the history of life. Most, but not quite all, accept the standard timeline for the beginning of the universe, of life, and of the major animal groups.

Some accept common descent, although most recognize that this “descent” was not really gradual. (In fact, most of the animal phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record about 500 million years ago in the “Cambrian explosion,” as documented in Stephen Meyer’s 2013 book Darwin’s Doubt.) Probably all reject natural selection as an adequate explanation for the development of life, but so do many other scientists who are not ID proponents.

“What is the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design?, November 30, 2024

So what, he asks, do we have to believe if we think that the universe shows evidence of design? He answers by offering a summary of what you do not have to believe:

Peter Urone, in his 2001 physics text College Physics writes, “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.” The prevailing view in science today is that physics explains all of chemistry, chemistry explains all of biology, and biology completely explains the human mind; thus, physics alone explains the human mind and all it does. Intelligent Design?

The belief that physics explains the human mind has been getting a pretty rough ride in recent years, as it is becoming less and less tenable. It wouldn’t be wise to believe it.

And if there is a mind behind the universe, your mind, while a creation, is probably not ultimately just physics.

Here’s a vid from earlier this year, setting out Sewell’s approach: