Intelligent agencies do not need to be ruled out. Look at how much progress science has made without involving that idea. Like the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory, quantum theory, the Big Bang theory, plate tectonics, relativity theory, and multiple other scientific and technological achievements such as space travel, the polio and smallpox vaccines, automobiles, and real-time global telecommunications, evolutionary theory needs no god and has no god in it.
i wasn't aware that the invention of the automobile required belief in the flying spaghetti multiverse!
But arguably the greatest discovery of all time, absolutely did require skepticism of atheism. the name itself 'Big Bang' was a pejorative term used by atheists to mock what they saw as overt theistic implications.
So by their own argument, science would have progressed much faster had they all been working under a theistic assumption
their argument not mine remember. I don't think we should have any preconceptions either way- but if your're going to pick one, skepticism of atheism has the better track record.
The inherent conflict between science and atheism, is that atheism is obliged to always try to close the case on the simplest, most minimaistic, reductionist God refuting explanation possible.
e.g. static universes, classical physics, Darwinism.
while a skeptic has no fear of delving ever deeper into a reality that is far more sophisticated and interesting than steady state atheists could ever imagine
For starters, a multiverse that can generate countless copies of every type of possible universe would inevitably lead to universes like ours capable of generating stable galaxies of solar systems, life, and consciousness, and it would do so without requiring a conscious agent, making the hypothesis more parsimonious, i.e., preferred according to Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation that accounts for all observations is the preferred explanation.
So this infinite probability machine can create absolutely anything--- except God, which would defeat the entire purpose- and so there is a built in safety mechanism insuring this never happens?
yet it has already apparently created sentient creative beings, reverse engineering their own universe, and who, according to even many like Andre Linde- principle in modern inflationary theory, are entirely capable of producing their own one day.. ooops!
There you go with the 'simplest' explanation being the 'best'
As above 'the simplest explanation' gave us static universes, classical physics, phrenology, the simplest explanation is certainly always the most tempting, but nature shows little regard for Occam's razor does it? moreover it is obliged to disobey it.
Moreover, why would a god need to finely tune the physical constants in order for the universe to work unless that god was being restricted by laws that transcended it? How could such an entity be called a omnipotent if its choices were constrained to very narrow limits?
mathematics... the only restriction is pure logic
For that matter, what does a universe ruled by a creator god need laws at all? Planets could orbit their stars according to its will. Light could travel only so fast because this omnipotent god was propelling it that fast and no faster. It's a godless universe that requires laws in order to run unmonitored.
this software adheres to laws thus, by your rationale, it spontaneously wrote itself for no reason, no ID involved....
And you once again dodged answering why anybody should toss out an idea that works in favor of one that can't be used to inform choices. I assume that's because you have no answer. If that is not correct in this case, you probably ought to say why you don't offer a reason to replace what works with what doesn't.
Do you ever do that in your life - say divorce a wife with whom you are happy to replace her with someone that you will fight with, or quit a good paying job that is secure and makes you happy for a low paying one that is mind-numbing and soul-crushing and from which you are likely to be downsized out of?
likewise, why throw out my idea, which works great, in favor of yours, which is terrible- and until you can answer this, I win..
it's not much of an argument is it?
You're misstating my position. What works is the theory, not evolution, or as you call it, adaptation.
no, not the same thing:
car designs are adaptable, they come in different shapes and sizes and colors, so is almost any reasonably sophisticated product design, a radio has a capacity for adaption, it can pick up different stations in different places and reproduce them at different volumes
this does not mean that this is how teh radio was created, or that enough tweaking of the knobs/ adaptation parameters will eventually produce a CD player, , force the knobs too far and they simply break- exactly as we see in adaptable life also- this paradox is inherent to the nested information systems involved in each,
i.e. you can't use adaptation to build the same system of adaptation you are trying to explain!!
no more than we could explain gravity with classical physics, it's an insurmountable paradox doomed to failure
the math is objective here- no matter what seems intuitive to you or I or Occam
The theory directs us in ways that have improved the human condition.
I think that may be a direct quote from Adolf Hitler?
not comparing you, but it has been used to justify eugenics on massive scales, not sure there is anything on the other side that begins to compensate for those horrors
They must all be complete morons in your learned eyes....working for evil anti-evolution organizations, hell bent on proving that there must be intelligence behind creation because we're not seeing much of it from the evolutionists or from the interpretation of their mountains of evidence. 
For someone who so strongly supports science's "scientific" theory, you apparently don't know much. "I don't know" is a bit of a sad response if you ask me. 
