Winter: I don't think you understand what I said. Yes I understand the T of A argument. Yes, I understand the possibility of an alternative universe.
It would not be simple logic telling you that. That's not what logic is.
This is what I was saying. There are (apparently) some forms of animal and plant life, which, with our understanding of evolution, can be said not to have evolved. That two essential but separate elements of their physiology would have had to come into existence instantanteously and simultaneously. Therefore they are not explained by evolution.
As I said, I don't know much about it, but that's part of the theory. Apparently one of them is an exploding beetle. I do understand your point, but my point is that you assume evolution can explain everything. Whereas these forms of life cannot, apparently, be explained by evolution. However, I am sure that when shown these forms of life you would say (as would other atheists and scientists) that it is simply something empirical that we have not understood so far, but will come to understand scientifically in the fullness of time, and when we do understand it, evolution will indeed offer a complete explanation.
But that would mean evolution does contain tiny, tiny elements of trust and belief. Which, of course, is fine.
I'm not a Creationist, I'm trying to explain the "intelligent design" theory. I think.