You're right, they did not reference any experiments, it's simply a statement which would need to be falsified in order to be dismissed. We still would agree on the statement that "intelligence creates CSI", but any contrary view that other impetuses create CSI would need to be observed and presented also in order to dismiss the exclusivity of intelligence alone creating CSI.
No. The observation stands as is: "intelligence creates CSI". It cannot be expanded to "intelligence alone creates CSI". That would require developing a hypothesis and experimenting to confirm or falsify that hypothesis. While I agree I am now talking about steps in the process beyond Step 1, I am not going to accept a conclusion or hypothesis as an observation.
Example: We observe that the burning of hydrocarbons produces CO2. Just because I don't observe CO2 production in any other way besides the burning of hydrocarbons, I cannot claim that my
observation is that the only way to produce CO2 is by the burning hydrocarbons.
The qualifier of "a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified)" would indicate "high levels" of CSI, and both have been observed. I see specificity instead of vagueness in that portion of step 1.
Define the statistics that equate with "unlikely to happen".
a. What is the dividing line between likely and unlikely...1 in a thousand...1 in a million?
b. What methodology is used to produce the statistics necessary to identify something as "unlikely to happen"?
Describe how the rarity of an event determines its complexity.
Give an example of an object with high CSI and describe the methodology for making that determination.
a. How were the statistics calculated regarding the rarity of the thing in question?
1. What were the initial assumptions of the analysis?
2. What natural processes were modeled in the performance of the analysis?
3. What are the bounds of statistical accuracy inherent in models studied?