Funny that they don't publish this evidence in professional journals.<quoted text>
Yet many scientists do see what they consider evidence of a creator.
No, we do NOT know this. In fact, the probability calculation is far, far more complicated than the simplistic 'multiply numbers together' strategies most often seen. For example, the steps involved are not independent and there are many more possible solutions than just one.As an example,we have the simplest life form that turns out to be more sophisticated than the most complex machine created by modern man and it comes complete with its own instructional manual.We know the odds on the random creation of life is so low that it far exceeds what is considered impossible.
Now, the question of how to determine if something is created by an intelligence or not is an interesting and useful one (especially for anthropology). Complexity of a structure is not even close to being sufficient to show intelligent action. Natural phenomena are often complex and produce artifacts that can be similar to those produced by intelligence. A few questions are important to consider before attempting to assign an artifact to intelligent agency:
1) What are the natural processes in the environment?
2) Could the natural processes form similar structures?
2) Are intelligent agents known for the area in question?
3) Is there some known technology that could produce the artifact?
4) Are the intelligent agents in the area known or suspected to have such technology?
These are off the top of my head, so I am sure there are a lot more that should be *routinely* considered. Also, awareness that intelligent agency often is shown by *simplicity* rather than complexity.
In the case of a designer for the universe, we don't even have the first question adequately answered. The answer to 2 is NO; the answer to 3 is NO, which leaves 4 moot.
In the case of design of life, again question 1 is unanswered and is actively being studied (that *is* the study of abiogenesis). Once again, the answer to 2,3,and 4 are all NO.
So why would you default to an intelligent agency when there is literally NO evidence for such? If anything the evidence is that only natural processes were involved, but that we simply don't know which.