I pointed out that just because in this case an intelligence was involved, that this does not mean that it is required.
John: If instead your point is meant only as speculative natural atheology, that's conceivable, but seems more like a (counter-intuitive) presumption than any>>
Nothing more speculative about that than about presuming a god.
John: evidentially-based assertion. (I was fascinated to find that even E. O. Wilson, Mr. Sociobiology himself, considers himself a deist.)>>
As long as science and religion do not mix, there are few problems.