I know that the following could sound very ridiculous. But when it comes to the language needed to prove the three invalid, I can't think of any straight way to put it. Can anybody help? 1) The human body is vastly more complex than a jumbo jet. But we say that 'natural events' [Evolution] led to humans. Well, could natural events lead to a jumbo jet? Could a natural even like a whirlwind sweep through a scrap yard and somehow assemble all the parts for a jumbo ready for take-off? If not, then natural events can neither account for the jumbo jets nor humans. 2) The Anthropic Argument: From a scientific point of view, any slight changes in any one of the several aspects of the Universe would have made it impossible for us to exist, or even have evolved. If the Earth were even a little closer to the Sun; if the atmosphere were a little thinner; if the Sun were hotter of cooler; if the structure of water were littler different, etc - we would not exist. All these and millions of other conditions need to be met for us to survive or evolve. What is the probability of that happening? Does that prove that we aren't here by pure chance? Has "someone been monkeying with the laws of physics?" 3) What about God having created the Universe with built-in organizing principles through which all forms of life and non-life developed. So Science is valid but God created science?