Has Science done away with a need for God?

[Angrboda]

Design implies a mind? But what is a mind? The intuition that design implies a mind is problematic on its own, but you're overlooking that once you imply a mind, you are only half finished. If mind is the product of biological evolution, then you've just bankrupted your argument, because then design --> mind --> nature. But whatever this 'god' thing that you think created the universe is, it is not a product of nature. Your implication fails because you didn't carry it through far enough. If mind is not known to be other than nature, then you cannot get from "design implies mind" to a non-natural creator without the additional step of ruling out mind as an artifact of nature. Have you done this? You've indicated that you think it absurd that mind is brain, but that's not a valid argument, that's an example of the argument from incredulity fallacy. No, mind might ultimately turn out to be non-natural as you suppose, but then it might just as soon turn out to be natural. Until that question is resolved you can't assert that design implies a non-natural mind, a cosmic creator. It could be that design only implies specific types of natural processes.

You're assuming that design implies mind and that mind is not natural; the latter premise is not adequately supported. So you can't conclude that design implies anything more than 'more nature'.