Yes, I understand that. But the proof rests on the physico-theological proof, doesn’t it?

I didn’t understand. What does “rests on” mean?
The assumption of the physico-theological proof is that a complex thing does not come into being by itself. Evolution does not contradict this, because it takes place only thanks to a few very special fundamental laws of nature that make the spontaneous formation of complex things possible. But the laws of nature themselves require an explanation. Whoever legislated them is the one who created the complex things. They did not create themselves. It is like saying that there is no need for outside involvement to explain the formation of a complex thing because there are computers that produce complex things. Someone programmed the computer, and he is considered the one who created the complexity. All this does is push the question one step back, from reality to the laws. It has no philosophical significance whatsoever.

I understand, but what I mean is this: suppose I trust the senses, and I say that in my opinion complex things come about by chance—then the discussion goes no further… right?

If you think that complex things come about by chance, then the argument indeed collapses, because you do not accept one of its premises—as with any logical argument. But your claim is patently unreasonable. To me this is similar to someone who says he does not accept the assumption that 2+3=5, and now all of science and mathematics are incorrect from his perspective. That is of course true, but he is talking nonsense.