Here is a line of reasoning I picked up years ago, not sure where, but it stuck with me.
In nature, we regularly observe distributions. Take grains of sand on a beach, the weight of ducks in a flock, etc. We measure them and find variations around a mean. Graph the data and we see the famous Bell Curve. In some cases we see a Poisson distribution. But in general, we see variations that are predictable.
Now let us consider the relative intelligence of the critters on the earth. Some exhibit little intelligence, like amoebas, slugs, and the like. Then we see a progression to insects, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and primates. Then 30 standard deviations away we find a critter that is different from all the other critters. This critter builds nuclear power plants and goes into outer space; The premise that this critter is a result of the random mutations of other critters doesn't pass the laugh test. Were it so, that great gulf between this critter and the other critters would be littered with other species exhibiting levels of intelligence filling the gap. Anyone who hand waves this away doesn't understand science. The only way of explaining this is that something outside of the observable system added un-natural intelligence to mankind.
