It is a primitive assumption of unsophisticated humans that as humans make things, everything around them must have been made. That is the origin of the concept of a creator. It shows a lack of imagination, ignorance and superstitious fear. It is not to be wondered at in primitive people--it is pathetic in educated, contemporary adults.
It is dull-witted.
I will respond to you the same way I responded to cicerone.
Quote cicerone imposter:
1. There is no evidence of an "intelligent designer." Intelligent designer is based on religion and faith, not evidence.
There is no evidence that the new information for macro evolution can be provided by mutations that are initiated by random introduction of new information. There is no evidence that evolution by random introduction of information as a "system" can spontaneously arise from non living matter.
But, I can provide evidence that intelligence can provide new information in an orderly way to add complexity and, intelligence can create a system like natural selection because it is a system using artificial intelligence.
And there is a large amount of historical evidence supporting the notion that there were many intelligent designers with the God of Genesis as the creator of everything including any other Intelligent Designers.
2. According to science, humans evolved.
That could also be argued by the Science supporting Intelligent Design by using The Designer to fill the gaps that science fills with faith and without any evidence explaining the process or by modeling the process.
3. In science, you must be able to observe what we conclude is evidence of its existence.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the claim that abiogenisis and macroevolution can happen by the random introduction of information to operate evolution by natural selection let alone create the system.
But, if there is, could you show us you understand or somebody else understands it, and please go over the step by step process (or sight a scholarly paper) describing how a one celled a sexually reproducing animal to evolved to an sexually reproducing wholly mammoth?
And, if you use the words "could have", "might have", "may have", etc. . . in your explanation could you show some proof that the process is understood, (and really could have happened) beyond giving the process a name like these?
4. Most things that cannot be observed is "inferred." It's only a premise. Everything in earth's environment is the result of nature.
But, since I can provide a real physical model showing Intelligence can create complexity. And, you can not provide a model where random introduction of information can produce macroevolution or any other comparable complex thing plus, since I can provide evidence that somebody in history claimed to be the designer and people witnessed him performing only supernatural things that someone with the designers capabilities could perform.
Let's, call the thing that introduced the information to introduce the system of natural selection by intelligent design and, the new information to fill the gaps for macroevolution, the "Magic Sky Daddy".
But, since you (so far anyway) can't produce as much evidence or modeling that random introduction of information can create the system (abiogensis) nor, fill the gaps of macroevolution let's still give your theory (the process known as Darwinian Evolution by natural selection of randomly introduced information) " the Spaghetti Monster.
I am suggesting Spaghetti Monster because, it suggests a non personal entity made of spaghetti and a pile of spaghetti looks "random". While, Magic Sky Daddy implies an intelligent caring person very similar to the one described in the first book of Genesis.
Where is my logic mistaken?