Well if you're admitting that evolution doesn't take into account origin of universe, etc. then that's a good thing. A lot of actual scientists are arrogant enough to claim otherwise, so I guess some of what I'm saying is indeed more aimed against those kinds.
As for irreducible complexity. "the possibility that those parts were previously useful separately" can possibly be discovered in the future, and so I wouldn't rule out that certain things could possibly be irreducibly complex to the point of disproving its evolution, just like it could be otherwise... however at this point I don't think we have sufficient evidence, knowledge or the technology to determine that. It's not a very useful concept for now.
As for the time factor, i think it's just assumed by most that since we've come to evolve to this point, then it must be possible within that time frame.. but see that's wrong, because you shouldn't be assuming that evolution did indeed happen like if the theory of evolution is a fact. It's still debated among the more logical scientists as to what kind of probabilities there are considering the many different factors of occurence.. so it's hard to talk about that when they themselves have trouble with that.
I haven't seen all of the arguments against the time factor, so I may still be lacking too when it comes to this. But personally, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist(evolutionary biologist in this case) to think that the probabilities are low when you understand some fundamentals of occurences in evolution as assumed in the theory of evolution.
And yeh, I am espousing that there is a mechanism absent in the theory of evolution as far as the accountance of consciousness is concerned. But then again if you think that evolution doesn't account for everything and that possibly there might be something extra which science has yet to explain, then I don't really need to add much, besides to maybe consider the possibility that consciousness is also part of what we don't understand (yet at least)
