all i see discussed is the "appearance" of quantum physics by the quantum theory.
but unless you have a 100% observable action and reaction, your still guessing. so the truth is not yet discovered.
your willing to admit that the theory is tentative, based on new evidence, it could change, but who is searching for the new evidence? or do you just study based on the theory, which means repeated trail and error of the current paths of research, or are you measuring all fields and potential culprits to the adverse effects that inhibit an "apparently" random behavior?
since man exists in space and time, how can man see something outside of space and time? it would be acceptable then, to conclude that anything outside space and time would not observable to mankind, yet something could "appear" to exist outside space and time without any way to prove it.
by this reasoning, tentative science remains tentative until it becomes a law by all observation, and that by the assertions of ID, God is not tentative, can only be discovered through laws, which are not guesses, not theory, but absolute facts based on all observation.
for this reason, tentative sciences have no relevance, and to claim all science proves nothing, and the "laws" of science proving nothing, would be saying science is useless, since it proves nothing. but the laws of science are relevant, and can be expanded on, but cannot be refuted even in its simplest form, such as gravity: what comes up, must come down. which is a half truth, because we know that far enough up, outside the field of the body that the gravity comes from, an object will not come back down. but the truth in "what comes up, must come down is true within the field, and weight of an object heavier than the body it exists in (such as air).
in conclusion: the tentative sciences prove nothing, but are a stepping stone to discover the truth. it is only a question yet unanswered, and a direction to follow to discover the truth. so to say the science of subatomic particles is always random, is a half truth, and makes scientist stupider, because they run experiments based on that without searching for the other hidden variables. likewise, did a scientist say belief in God makes people stupider, because they don't look for the truth of the universe through science. but if you acknowledge the laws of science that prove God, they are laws that direct science to "keep looking" which means : smarter.
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides