I think the design is hard for those arguing against it to sound effective. Argument there just has to appeal to unproven things.
"Appeal to unproven things:
The "ggod" you appeal to can
be proven to exist?
We've noticed that the scientifically / generally illiterate have the idea that saying "unproven" affects science like kryptonite.
It doesn't, any more than doex the next facile quip.
Nothing ever proven in court either tho saying so
would be equally lame.
There's formal proof in math.
What evolution dose use to explain origin of what
you are pleased to call " design" is a step by step
demonstration of how it developed in accordance
with known physical mechanisms.
"God went poof" is effective for the clueless
and oh- so- easily- satisfied. The lazy.
And for those who choose to think they know more
than every researcher on earth. With no study.
Amazing faith in themselves! Kinda arrogant and
withal preposterous.
And rather shocking dismissal of all the evidence for
the nature of such god as there may be.
The first life may or may not be god- planted.
Nobody knows.
From there, though, it developed to its present form
on its own, over vast stretches of time. As proven
beyond reasonable doubt by every relevant fact existence.
God is behind all facts on earth, if he exists.
But that ain't "effective" for those who know better.
Of course there's those who not only know more than
anyone who actually studied, but know better
than the very god they say exists yet so disrespct.
What a sorry way to " give thanks".