I don't get it. Whenever I bring up intelligent design, most people start talking g about religion. Is Dawking the only one willing to consider a case where an advanced intelligent being created the first life form on earth, out of respect for the evidence found in our observable world?
Of course, the problem always goes back farther and farther. Who created the creator?
By the way, the evidence that you pointed to that supports evolution was basically the same as the Christians used to say three hundred years ago. "God exists because every respectable person agrees so". The number of peer reviewed papers means nothing to me.
Knowing you, you should be able to point out plenty of papers that support the theory of evolution, as could i. The question I have for you is this: can you find anything that refutes intelligent design? I'm sure you are aware of the issues that arise, mathematically speaking, with the abiotic generation of a genetic code, as with the generation new information.
Intelligent design exist in the lab, where researchers are the gods that can manipulate the organisms phenotype. And, in the case of simple organisms (bacteria), researchers (gods) can transform the bacteria to a new species. So, in terms of intelligent design, we are the gods. As for our species (the gods of this planet) we are but the result of billions of years of random mutations. Some of those mutation resulted in fatal hits (hence we never get to see those species), some resulted in phenotypes that are less suited for the environment, while others resulted in better fit phenotypes. This last one was able to reproduce and more phenotype branches started the process over and over. Even if you wanted to assume some god went though and continues to go through this random chance mutations, it would be hard to test for this direct manipulation. Whereas we know some of the ways in which these chance mutations take place. We also have recorded methodology for carrying out our own intelligent design in the labs.
So, your question is a non-starter since there is simply no way to test for a "manipulator", a designer. Mathematical equations are nothing more than probabilities. And, yes, if we could go back some 3.9 Billion years ago and start with RNA (the supposed organic molecule that started it all) and allowed random processes to go forward, it is likely that H sapiens would not be part of the equation. There would likely be other evolved set of species. So, yes, running the mathematical equations comes up with different probabilities each time. This does not refute evolution, to the contrary it makes the argument far more credible. We are but a random chance and that is it.