If the idea of an intelligent, transcendent creator wasn't tied to any religion, I'm certain most scientists would accept it as the most plausible explanation for why the universe exists and why it appears so designed and finely-tuned for life. Many scientists are put off the idea of a creator by traditional religion (or maybe more accurately, by religious people). Others (a small minority) hate the idea of anything existing that's more intelligent than they are. I'm not saying we should get rid of religion so that scientists will believe in God. I'm explaining that the objection to the mere idea of God – an intelligent, transcendent creator – mostly isn't based on logic or lack of evidence, it's rooted in rejection of religion. A recent conversation with an atheist biologist supports this. He was raised Catholic, and his objections to God stemmed entirely from his objection to miracles and Catholic doctrines, which he rejected as a teen. He didn't have any logical objections to God, himself, but to religious claims. To him, God was so inextricably tied to those claims that God got thrown out along with them. So, why don't scientists just acknowledge a deistic sort of God while rejecting religion? I wonder about this a lot. As near as I can tell, some of them dislike religion and religious people so much they'll jettison the truth over it. I recall the biology grad student I talked with decades ago who agreed that developments in biology supported design, but said he and his colleagues were hesitant to publicly acknowledge it, because it would support Christians. *sigh* What a mess. It's complicated, y'all. If you're Christian, keep this in mind when you have conversations with science-minded atheists. And here's something most of us don't want to hear: The way we conduct ourselves may be the only Gospel some people ever receive – and that includes our children. They "hear" how we behave far more than what we say.