You're assuming God is no wiser or capable than you are. You're also assuming you can deduce in your mind the purposes God had for doing the things He did and allowing the things He allowed. Your standard is your own competence and intelligence. You cannot rise above it.
If God were a mere man--if he were no smarter than you--you would have a compelling point to make about his incompetence. But if He were no smarter than you, He would have never gotten this amazing universe and its astounding richness of life underway.
Go ahead, Vade Retro. You're a bright fellow. Create a universe and have it give rise to life.
When somebody catches God doing something, He has a place in science class.
I'll address any further rantings in the morning.
This looks a little like Arthur C. Clarke's statement, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Let's take a look at an intriguing parallel.
The Kevin Curry paraphrase: "The intervention of a sufficiently powerful, knowing, and widespread entity is indistinguishable from . . . no intervention at all."
What strikes me is that, while neither version can be easily disproven, old Arthur's statement had a certain intuitive quality to it. It looks true. People reading it for the first time tend to accept it at once as an insight to the situation.
Kevin's version, on the other hand, makes me scratch my head and say "Why would that be?"