So if you had your "man in the mirror" moment why are still using argument from design?
I can't argue that everything came from a common ancestor or that inanimate unconscious matter event can eventually create complex organisms. I see the complexities of the universe and those complexities don't fit into that thinking (imo).
I mean, it is possible, as Darwin suggested, that organisms can adapt so well to environments that intelligence seems involved even when it's not. However, statistical theory is on the side of design. And if theory is good enough to combat intelligent design, I say it's good enough to support it.
All scientific observations are based in theory. Anthropic Coincidence and design ...The Anthropic Coincidences: A Natural Explanation
Normal human logic will allow us to see a painting and know that it was created.. we do not apply this to the Universe. We know that there was a creation, but we do not logically even give a second though to the possibility of a creator?
Man in the mirror?, to me William Paley makes sense. Also scientific theory requires observations, empirical evidence, and usually replication. We can't replicate the creation of the universe to show solely natural causes without intelligence. We can't even observe evolution passed minor changes and adaptions (def not species to species). There isn't good empirical evidence and we can only take modern observations, fossils and create theories and hypothesis. Therefore, even if I was pushing an institutionalized baseless theory as you are... I would be foolish to assume others are foolish simply for attempting to support an opposing view.
that's why.
Trade em for Dwight.