Hardly got into the article and this glaring inaccuracy slaps me in the face..I don't think I have ever heard a scientist say the universe just happened by accident..Most scientists simply say they "don't know"... and leave it at that..
The opposite of "accident" is intent or purpose. Are you saying such scientists on the whole readily concede specific intent and purpose to the universe? If there is a grand purpose, then that concedes a Grand Purposer or Designer. Even if many scientists don't come right out & postulate an accidental origin, it doesn't mean they don't downright imply it all the time!
It's not like the average scientist can point to the "evidence" of our creaturely origins coming from extraterrestial sources. And the bulk of scientists I've read would fit more neatly into the atheist camp vs. the agnostic camp.
Therefore, they embrace naturalism vs. a supernatural or extranatural source.
So do the math. Naturalism, as an explanation of the source of origins, = concluding or postulating that random, natural forces (which know no intent or purpose since nature is impersonal) are responsible for what has transpired.
I don't know about you. But I as a person am at least aware and conscious of the natural forces whereas these forces are not cognizant of me. So "it" is greater than "us?"
Uhhh.. can't get much plainer than "I don't know"..
The only thing it "implies" is that the answer is unknown..