Collins and directed evolution: why does he refuse to infer biocomplexity?

On the other hand, the complexity seen in living things cannot be used as evidence of the Creator in Collins, because Darwinism has interpreted the existence of this complexity as a result of the common origin and natural selection, and therefore it is no longer permissible to infer such complexity on the existence of God and His creation! And that the evidence of the theory of Darwinian evolution has become compelling for any scientist understood, and therefore the inference of complexity on the creation of God Almighty has become corrupt and incorrect! Even in places where the Darwinian or materialist explanation cannot be filled, such as the genesis of life or the emergence of the first living cell, Collins warns us not to resort to divine creation as an explanation, because science in the future will not be unable to find a physical explanation, and then this inference will be a cause of destabilization of the beliefs of believers, as happened in the past with the scientific disclosures of Galileo and Darwin, where believers are used to explain the gaps that science cannot explain as the direct action of God. But is inferring the design and complexity of living organisms to infer the principle of knowledge gaps, as Collins claims? In fact, the answer is no, because whoever infers the design and complexity of living organisms follows a mental rule of perception of teleology and purpose in design or complexity and thus realizes that it is the work of a teleological maker, and in contrast, random mutations and natural selection are either incapable of providing a true explanation for this design or complexity or new information in the genetic strip or the new function or organ of the organism or have weak explanatory power compared to the explanatory power of imposing the creator or intelligent designer. It is interesting that if we judge Francis Collins to what he describes as the principle of knowledge gaps, he would be the first condemned in this trial, let us say in the third chapter of the book that the complexity of the universe when talking about the interpretation of fine tuning and fine calibration of the laws of physics complicates the comparison between the different interpretations to come up with the best explanation is that there is a creator of this universe versus the physical explanations deny its existence, and states that the Big Bang requires a divine outcome of its existence, and that one might not imagine otherwise. Is the sign of the regularity of the waves of the sea and the regularity of the rotation of the stars and stars higher than the sign of the code of vital information in the genetic strip or is the opposite closer to the mind?! Contradictory thinking in fact! - Dr. Hisham Azmi, The guided evolution between science and religion, p 199. http://braheen.com/center-publications/77-tesr Video clip attached to the post: https://www.diyaa-alandalus.com/api/media/videos/braheen-org-pfbid028BhLSLzDGKGWPBNFhyRTL-415b5554.mp4 — Source: Published on Facebook's "Braheen Center" page https://www.facebook.com/braheen.org/posts/pfbid028BhLSLzDGKGWPBNFhyRTLG1vZD1mUYagoLPQS1uow73AsugUr198G6aR5MeyMwB6l