Argument against Intelligent Design

[snowtracks]

To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

*Must have the greatest event in the universe’s history and even before. First thought: that would be most ginormously interesting.

So a bunch credulity and backwards thinking is your argument ......Sad

So after you asked them, did they acknowledge that naturalism was the most reasonable explanation?