"I think it’s a foolhardy act to fall back on the same explanation that Darwin exploded when he solved that big biological problem. What Darwin achieved should be a cautionary tale not to fall into that same kind of trap of saying, “Oh, we don’t understand it, therefore there must have been a designer who did it.” We got that wrong till the middle of the 19th century. If an eye is statistically improbable, how much more statistically improbable would an intelligence capable of designing an eye, or designing the laws of physics or quantum theory, actually be? You have simply erected a new problem analogous to the problem of explaining natural complexities. It’s a cowardly evasion, it’s lazy. What we should be doing as scientists is rolling up our sleeves and saying, right, Darwin solved the big problem. Now let’s take that as encouragement to solve the other big problems, like the origin of life and the origin of the cosmos."