First of all, the standard premise upon which Intelligent Design rests upon is irreducible complexity; that the mechanisms of life are too complex to have evolved independent of an controlling or integrating supernatural (or external, if you like) intelligence. Your definition merely postulates that the fundamental conditions of the universe are predisposed toward conditions that support life, which is still a presumptive position with respect to abiogenesis (the initial creation of life) but not in line with the popular concept of ID, or indeed, even in contradiction of natural selection. It certainly doesn’t stand in opposition to evolution as an observed process.
Also, your numbers are way off. A google is 10[sup]100[/sup], which is massively in excess of the number of atoms in the universe, much less the number of biological cells on planet Earth. (A googleplex is 10[sup]10[sup]100[/sup][/sup] and is therefore clearly a number of interest only to number theorists and finance speculators.)
A couple of clarifications: there is nothing especially “atheistic” about evolution per se, other that that the evidence for it stands in contradiction to various creation myths, including Judeo-Christian Creationism, and the lack of necessity for supernatural entities to guide or control animal and species development. An acceptance of the evidence of evolution, and even agreement with the theory of natural selection does not stand in opposition to religious belief in toto, just in ways that make inaccurate claims regarding the natural world (i.e. the Earth is only 6000 years old.)
Second, there’s nothing speculative about evolution, which we can observe in laboratory conditions (for microorganisms) and for which fossil, zoological, and genetic evidence exists in overwhelming quantity, any more than there is any question of the existence of gravity. Natural selection (which is the Darwinist theory of the mechanism for evolution) is scientific in that it follows the observational scientific method of creating falsifiable hypotheses and testing these against predictions; for instance, that given two different species separated by a time period in the fossil record, there will be a continuum (or such that can be recovered from physical evidence) for changes from one form to another.
Third, religious (or other) faith is nonfalsifiable; that is, it doesn’t make claims that can be challenged and invalidated, nor does it offer objective, tangible evidence to back its claims; ultimately, it argues to an appeal to authority. This isn’t necessarily wrong; one can postulate, for instance, that all of the things which scientific research has demonstrated are actually a giant confidence trick; that a god buried bones and aged rocks to make the Earth appear older than it really is, but such an explanation is unsatisfying from a cause-and-effect point of view.
Science has offered an explanation for the natural world which increasingly ties all phenomena together into a comprehensive, yet explicable model which, as it becomes more refined offers a greater ability to predict as-yet unseen phenomena, whereas religion is (almost always) limited to a conservative and unchanging (or predestined) view of the world that suffers from ambiguous post hoc rationalizations of why things happen, i.e. “it was God’s will.” The validity of science (if this meets your criteria for superiority) is that it makes predictions about unseen events, and is validates by repeated success in matching those predictions.
It may sound pejorative to refer to science as being more progressive, but in terms of information scope it is; science seeks to reason from an ever increasing (and theoretically unlimited) body of knowledge, whereas religion starts with fundamental principles and studies, and except for the occasional unearthed arcanae and Dead Sea scrolls, reasons strictly from that basis. As an analogy, imagine a physicist who referred only to his sophomore quantum mechanics text as the absolute, comprehensive, and irrefutable authority on that topic, refusing to read articles in Physical Review or perform experiments. Certainly, biblical scholars study and publish, but their studies are based upon the same existent materials, not on testable propositions and experimental data.