Behold the "reasoning" of the hopeless. "Why prove anything? Why not just assume it? Why not just assume that the Great Gazoo is behind everything...?" Again, as a religious point, that's fine. Who cares. But if you asserting it as a scientific proposition, you can't just say "God did it." That's inherently not scientific. Those are the rules of the science game. If you want to do science, you have to actually do science. You can't do religion and just pretend that it's science and whine when someone calls you on it. That's exactly what Demski's doing. (Johnson's a lawyer, so he isn't even doing science.)
Only a loused up view of the world would assume chaos, or unguided, inexplicable forces to be the operative factor in causing the orderly processes observed by science.
No, only the delusional requires a deity figure to control nature. Only a fool refuses to understand how the order in nature arises.
But you don't really have anything to offer as a substitute for God, do you, except for your own emotion and reason, neither of which carry much authority.
Who needs a substitute for God? Why do you people always insist that your psychological shortcomings are necessarily everyone else's?? If you have psychological issues that require you to believe in God, that's your business. But it baffles my mind that you would insist that everyone else share in your problems.
You're so afraid of the notion of God that you lash out with the word "unscientific!" at the slightest hint He might just be behind it all.
Don't you get it, yet?? I don't believe in your God. I have no "fear" of anything I don't believe exists. I no more fear of things related to your God than I have fear of things related to the Easter Bunny or Darth Vader.
Well, in the end such a point of view happens to be one of the more unscientific ones, because it cannot explain order out of chaos.
Bullshit.
An intelligent designer at least makes for a decent explanation, although perhaps unprovable.
An intelligent designer is a pleasant fairy tale. Nothing more.
Narrow-minded ideologues, on the other hand, can only throw up their hands and say, "We don't know, and it is unscientific even to consider."
It is unscientific to consider something that is supernatural, by the very definition of "science."
Proof, strictly speaking, is a difficult thing to come by. You use the term too loosely.
Prove it.
Your definition of "supernatural" may be arbitrary.