I could write books on why I disagree on this. When there's an uncertainty this huge, why go with the by far most unlikely option with a lot of gaps, twists and what not anyways instead of going with what we do know?



And why would that be? If we are, very much like we already have, going to continue to figure out more and more of this world, why wouldn't that change the status of God as something beyond improbable? You know, when you think about it, nothing is certain anyway. Not in an absolute manner.



But at the same time the total lack of proof for divine intervention and so on in my opinion are evidence on how God isn't more real than the invisible pink unicorn God. Meaning, what's the relevance of the argument, when it doesn't change anything? The one thing that doesn't change is the lack of evidence.



No, they don't deny most of science, but they still for some reason assume complexity and rarity is somehow a direct clue of how an intelligent designer is behind everything. Truth is, ID-believers can't really cope with the fact that they can't see past our current horizon of knowledge so to speak. They can't really deal with the immense amounts of cause/reaction/etc. data that lead to where we are now.

Why ow why, should a "God" have caused some kind of Butterfly-effect billions of years ago that eventually caused where and what we are today? What's even weirder is that certain people for some reason believe it somehow must have been an 'intelligent' act.



Great analogy.. same weird stuff is going on when it comes to opponents of stem cell research and what not.

Cheers