Dooley, as with anyone inclined to believe in a deity behind the "creation", it is virtually impossible to logically discuss this topic with you. The reason being is that you (and others like you) will always run to the tired old belief that just because someone cannot disprove god lends credibility to the idea that a deity of some kind exists. This is simply not the case. I cannot disprove the existence of invisible, pink unicorns either, but that does not mean that they exist.

The position of most rational minds is one of skepticism or disbelief (not just of god, but of just about everything). The concept is to start from position of non-belief, placing the concept in a place of being non-plausible and then seeing if an answer can be derived apart from it. I may not have explained that very well, so let's look at a dumb example.

Let's say I knock on your door, you answer and in a very excited voice I tell you that I just say some man fly across the sky by his own power. I would guess, if you are a rational individual, that you would become instantly skeptical of this claim. You would move the concept into the realm of improbability and then, if you are interested, you would try to gather evidence to see if the claim can be moved from improbability to probability. If, for example, upon investigation you discover that a man did "fly" across the sky, but he was attached to clear wires because they were filming a movie not to far away, then the concept of a man flying "by his own power" remains in the realm of the improbable. What was witnessed was explained without having to resort to some unknown or something supernatural.

Such is the case with science and god and especially with the idea of a creator deity. When someone suggests that everything was created by intelligent design (i.e. some creator deity or deities) then the concept is instantly placed in the realm of skepticism, just as the man flying by his own power was. Then the "creation" is tested to see if we can find answers for how it came about. If natural causes can be found, then the concept of a creator being remains in the realm of being implausible. So far ideas, theories and the like have shown that all that we see around us can be answered by naturalistic causes. As a result, the concept of a "god" or "gods" or some other creative being still remains in the realm of implausibility. As such, there is no need to evoke god and to believe that he/she/it is behind our reality.