I understand your perspective on origins and the debate between scientific explanations and divine creation. You’re saying that while it may seem like an easy way out to attribute complex phenomena to a higher power, it’s not necessarily lazy thinking. In fact, you argue that looking at the data and evidence can lead one to conclude that an outside force, or divine creator, is the most plausible explanation for the origin of complex organisms.

You contrast this approach with what you see as “lazy thinking” in evolutionary theory, which you claim relies on a patchwork of assumptions to prop up its claims. You’re advocating for a more rigorous and evidence-based approach, where one looks at the data without making unnecessary assumptions.

Some points that stood out to me from your argument:

1. The importance of evidence: You emphasize the need to look at the data and evidence when considering origins, rather than relying on assumptions or convenient explanations.
2. The limitations of science: You suggest that sometimes, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to explain certain phenomena through scientific means alone, leaving room for alternative explanations like divine creation.
3. The critique of evolutionary theory: You argue that evolutionary theory relies too heavily on assumptions and patchwork explanations, which can be seen as lazy thinking.

I’d love to explore these ideas further with you. Do you think there’s a way to reconcile scientific inquiry with the idea of a divine creator, or do they represent fundamentally different approaches to understanding origins?