The series of leaps I mentioned are why I believe there is a supreme being that has eternally existed. I do not present it as a proof or an argument. And Evan, your response may be straining at some semantics. I probably could have used some different terms, but the definitions are broad enough to accurately describe the basic ideas.
Your problem is that you think that believing matter has always existed or has changed from simple forms to complex forms (self-aware forms no less) is science. It is not, it is philosophical and requires faith.
Eck you asked for an argument, but overlooked the substance I gave you for discussion. I linked an article with discussions by 16 leading biologists and philosophers. None of them are theists, and most used to be darwinists. My point by posting that article was to show that the science is considered incomplete by the top scientists in the field. For you to talk like its all settled is arrogance. People much smarter than you are not so sure.
And as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, one man who by many is considered the greatest genius in the modern era (Einstein) was a theist. That doesn't prove the existance of God by any means. But for you to treat theists with the trite condescension that you do, means that you are also dismissing Einstein as well as many other accomplished minds with the same condescension.
You're not as smart as you think you are. And you don't understand ID very well either.
On probability. I can jump in the air a million times. I can jump in the air a billion times. But no matter how many times I jump in the air, I will never reach the moon.
When you look at the basic building blocks of life, there are certain characteristics of these building blocks where the darwinistic premise that A eventually evolved to B simply cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection, no matter how many times you flip the coin. ID is the scientific evaluation of the characteristics of design versus probability. It makes no statements about who or what the designer is. It is the scientific evaluation of a concept that we all intuitively understand.
If we walk along the beach and see a sand castle, we know it did not come about by wave and wind acting on sand particles. There are things much simpler than living organisms that we know to be design like pre-historic rock carvings. ID scientists have spent time developing a scientific method for measuring the differences between a product of design and a product of non-directed processes.
I don't expect any one to believe in God based on these arguments. I do think that a reasonable and thinking person would realize that science has not disproven god/gods. But even more than that, the holes in the prevailing opinions on darwinism are beginning to show -- even to the secular community. As with all advances in science, the orthodoxy is slow to change. But it looks like it is changing with even the darwinists.
I find agnosticism a little more logical than atheism. It seems that atheists doth protest too much. Its more like they are mad at God so they go to great lengths to deny his existence. Its interesting to see the NF (Evan) and the NT (Eck) express their respective condescension to the concept. Though Eck, sorry dude. You seem way too hysterical to be an NT. Maybe you really do have a logical approach to your thinking but that has not shown up in this discussion.