No shit, charlie!!! Just because we don't 'know' how life started does not automatically mean god did it.
Limited causal alternatives do not permit to claim of " not knowing "http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1810-limited-causal-alternatives-for-origins
Its not justified to claim " we don't know ", when a limited range of alternatives and options are available. In regard of the existence of the universe, and the origin of life, there are basically two, namely :
1. A intelligent causal agent
2. Natural, blind, unguided random forces and chemical reactions
The second option can be based on physical necessity, or random unguided events ( chance, luck ).
So we can resume the possible causes just and exactly to 3, namely:
random, unguided events ( luck/chance)
Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. ( Furusawa, 1998 ) So there was no evolution prior to DNA replication. Then proponents of naturalism often resort to the RNA World. In the “RNA World” hypothesis for the origin of life, RNA performed both the information storage and enzymatic functions before these roles were outsourced to DNA and proteins. But how could RNA repair itself? If RNA needs to be protected from damage, the protein repair system would have needed to be there from the beginning. Proponents of natural mechanisms might surmise that different primitive RNAs worked side by side to repair each other, but that strains credibility for a hypothesis already far-fetched. The the very origin of the first organisms presents at least an appearance of a paradox because a certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded (Penny, 2005).
Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ? The counterargument is ofther that evolution is not random. True. But there was no evolution prior DNA replication was in place.
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book ? Its evidently not possible.
But that equals to say, random unguided processes created a optimal genetic code, a genetic cipher, and a uncalculable amount of precise genetic instructions, and a hudge number of precisely shaped interlocked and interdependent molecular parts, that interact with each other in a precise manner to create the first living cell.
In other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, a translation system, and the information content of a enciclopedia being written in english translated to chinese through a extremely sophisticated computer system.
The conclusion that a intelligent designer had to setup the system follows not based on missing knowledge ( argument from ignorance ). We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information and irreducible complex systems all the time. The genetic code, its translation system, and irreducible interdependent machinery inside cells is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer. Its not justified to claim ignorance.
Since chance, and physical necessity won't cut the cake, the best explanation for our existence is design.
Pretend you wake up in the morning and there's a birthday cake sitting on your kitchen table, and it just happens to be your birthday. What do you think? You ask yourself, "Where did this cake come from?" There are only a couple of possibilities, theoretically. It could have just materialized out of nowhere on your kitchen table coincidentally on your birthday. It could have just "poofed" into existence. I guess that would be in the realm of theoretic possibilities. Or maybe a great, hot, wet wind blew through your neighbor's kitchen gathering up a bunch of ingredients and kind of accidentally baked a cake that landed on your table. The fact that it happened on your birthday is a coincidence. I guess that would be "possible" too. The cake could have come out of nowhere, or could have just assembled itself by chance. Or the other alternative would be that a person baked the cake for you and dropped it off in the middle of the night.
Now here's the trick. When faced with limited options you don't have the liberty not to believe something. If you reject the idea that somebody baked the cake for you, you must assert in its place that the cake either materialized out of nothing or formed itself by accident. When you reject one option you are asserting an alternate option when all the options are clear.
Do you see that? When you are faced with just a limited number of choices, if you reject one choice you've got to opt for one of those that remains. So the question is, which option makes most sense?http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201303/201303_026_Athiests.cfm
The Christian Geneticist Francis Collins of Human Genome Project fame said he was an agnostic in college. Yet he confesses that his “I don’t know” was more an “I don’t want to know” attitude — a “willful blindness.” This agnosticism eventually gave way to outright atheism — although Collins would later come to faith in Christ. He began reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, and Collins realized his own antireligious constructs were “those of a schoolboy.”
Because the existence of God is a massively important topic, we cannot afford not to pay attention — especially in an age of so many diversions. Philosopher Tom Morris points out that sports, TV, restaurants, concerts, cars, billiards, and a thousand other activities can divert us from the ultimate issues of life. As a result, we don’t “tune into” God. And when a crisis hits (death, hospitalization, natural disaster), we are not really in the best condition to process and make accurate judgments about those deep questions. The person who says, “I do not know if God exists,” may have chosen to live by diversions and distractions and thus to ignore God. This is not an innocent ignorance; this ignorance is the result of our neglecting our duty.
So the theist, atheist, and militant (ornery) agnostic all bear a burden of proof; the theist does not have a heavier burden since all claim to know something. Furthermore, even the alleged ordinary agnostic still is not off the hook. For one thing, one cannot remain neutral all his life; he will make commitments or hold beliefs all along the way that reflect either an atheistic or theistic worldview. He is either going to be a practical atheist or practical theist (or a mixture of the two) in some fashion throughout his life. But he can’t straddle the fence for long. Also, the ordinary agnostic may say, “I do not know,” but this often means “I do not care” — the view of an “apatheist.” Refusing to seek out whether God exists or not; refusing to humble oneself to seek whatever light about God is available; living a life of distractions rather than thoughtfully reflecting about one’s meaning, purpose, or destiny leaves one culpable in his ignorance, not innocent.
Paul Davies, the fifth miracle : At that time, the very notion that life might spring into being spontaneously from a nonliving chemical mixture was greeted with fierce criticism from theologians, and even from some scientists. The eminent British physicist Lord Kelvin dismissed the whole idea as “a very ancient speculation,” opining that “science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis.” He stated unequivocally, “Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive.” This left only two alternatives: either life has always existed or its origin was a miracle.
Or that god is real. God of the gaps has been proven wrong, time and again.
God of the gaps is a comfortable way to try to criticize and reject a argument and avoid to address actually the issues raised. Oponents of ID resort to it all the time, even when a robust case is made, with clear and detailed science based observation, prediction, experiment, and and logical inference and conclusion. The evidence for intelligent design has not been shrinking in the last two decades. It’s been growing, while the barriers to explain origins through naturalism have grown. This is obvious in regard of all relevant issues : the origin and fine tuning of the universe, of life, and biodiversity.