it seems there are 2 options for just about everything and the usual questions
I'm not entirely convinced these are the only two options, but the argument "well what seems more likely" never leads anywhere because the answer to the lack of demonstration of the intelligent designer is "well, you just don't know HOW to demonstrate him and I can't tell you either." Random chance as it were offers no comfort, no punishment, no reward, no incentive, but it's at least equally as probable as undemonstrated intelligent designer. Things do seem to happen by random chance, right? They're not always though, it's just that we can't tell exactly what the direct cause is for sure yet.
Practical example: in the ten years I've been a golfer, I have one hole in one. All golfers want one, hope for one, but the second my ball disappeared, I was thrilled but realized quickly, oh, that's really just dumb luck. It's random chance: my ball landed at a spot on the green, with the right spin and line somehow, to get to the hole and drop in. That LOOKS like random chance. It isn't. It's a result of many other demonstrable, measurable factors: swing speed, wind direction, attack angle to the ball, spin rate which is itself is a result of physical factors I can't see and certainly don't know how to affect or repeatbly duplicate. It's not random chance. But Jesus sure didn't hole that shot, right? Because that's really how that argument positions it: either it's random chance, or Jesus did it, not physics and unseen factors that might be mistaken for either chance or Jesus.