>>12433209The best argument against it is that natural selection not only has more explanatory power that is consistent with the evidence than anything else does, a cosmos in which that happens by design implies a designer the motives of which have no possible self-consistent explanations: That is, the more you adjust the motives to fit the results attributed to them, the less of them there are, even if one prefers to imagine it as a man who created a world in order to watch it burn: Teleology is all great fun, but it's mostly fun of that sort, like the sandbox castles friends and I used to build then raze in assorted disasters before moving on to more advanced pranks that, also, weren't science.
