I understand. And I resist the use of "best," based on Occam's Razor. It seems to me -- in my always humble opinion -- that if you have two possible explanations for a phenomenon, one being natural and undirected, and the other being (forgive me) an unseen intervention by little green men from Uranus, then without any further evidence to support the Uranus explanation, I don't think it can be seriously considered.
The biggest difference between us that where you have "biological features or processes that are otherwise inexplicable" I prefer "features of life v non-life" so as to not unintentionally limit the discussion to bio/chemistry alone.
Well, yeah. But that really opens it up. In these threads, we're usually discussing the adequacy of the biological theory of evolution.
Dawg.
Intelligently designed placemarker
But if you swear your next door neighbors, who may have seen such a visit, to silence, don't be surprised how it plays out.
IMHO, all of science ought to be ideologically and theologically neutral - not prejudiced toward any metaphysical worldview.
Festival of Uranus placemarker