It does explain the basic idea that the Darwinian model doesn't work and a brief description of the design inference.
The video focuses on a combination lock as an illustration of the problem. A bike lock with four
10-character possibilities would have 10,000 possible combinations, making it unlikely that a thief would have or take the time to randomly try to guess the combination. Proteins are vastly more complex and the possibility of randomness producing new functions is essentially nil.
But what isn't discussed is that someone had to first design the lock and set it to open with a correct combination. What lies behind the physical representation of the "design" or "information" is even more beyond the realm of random mechanistic processes.
I support ID even though it avoids the theological questions.
I just want to push a little further.
