Think about this.

You answer questions that science currently cannot with “God did it!” But then in the next breath you go on to describe God Herself as being “beyond human understanding,” or anything akin. Can you really not readily realize this confidence trick? Having installed God in the middle of everything, you arrive at exactly the same place you would’ve without Her help: “I’m not sure,” or, “I don’t know,” or “It’s beyond human understanding.” You’ve simply personified the unknown, and then made friends with it. Nothing has been gained. Further, matter of factly, “God did it” throws away any potential for advancement. In science, “I don’t know” is the only answer actually available in quite a lot of domains. Still, this sort of uncertainty maintains room for the ending echo “…yet.” How did DNA coding come to be? “I don’t know…yet.” By what process does the clump of cells that result from a sperm and egg hanging out for a minute come alive and obtain perspective, what we sometimes call a ‘spirit’ or ‘ego’? “I don’t know…yet.” And so forth. Essentially what’s said in all such cases of science is, “We aren’t sure, but we’re working on it.” In the case of God, however, you offer a heavenly rewording of “I don’t know,” and then stamp the situation, case closed. Why have the physical constants that facilitate our kind of life assumed the values that they have? “God did it. Done. Next question.” This variety of nonsense leaves no room for progress. Not only have you absolutely failed to provide any functional demonstration or explanation of anything; you’ve called your bullshit the final word. On what grounds does this work for you? I sincerely motion that scientifically conceding, “I’m not sure yet,” in the first place is of much more intellectual honesty and use than boasting, “God did it.” Because in either case nothing has been actually moved forward, and in the latter you’ve imagined quite a lot more to be explained, quite a lot that by definition can never be explained, and then told everybody else to stop worrying about it.

What about it?

Further, if you do in fact maintain that our world is so complex as to necessitate a designer, does it not follow that such a designer would by definition be even more complex, and thus require another, still better designer of Her own? Really. If complexity is a criterion by which you decide whether something has a designer, why haven’t you decided that God, too, should have one? On what grounds is it sensible to dismiss this requisite in talks of God? Because, nonbelief in God allows for the notion, not that something can come out of nothing, but that the complex comes from the simple (the theory of evolution by natural selection being a fantastic example of this premise). In the case for belief, though, what’s endorsed is that something complex comes from something even more complex, that for some unavailable reason is capable of selfsustaining its complexity. In this way, the creationist worldview is internally inconsistent to the point of self-destruction.