Nothing can be empirically proven though, that’s why you’ll often hear “science doesn’t do proof” in these kinds of forums.
That’s a false statement too, if you can quote someone from the ID community who expressed that view I’d like to see it.
Which make a change from the usual naturalism of the gaps crutch we see so often here.
It’s a fact though, any claim about probabilities being high or low must be accompanied by data that supports the claim, which is this a contentious point?