An open letter to Mr. Comfort (with apologies to Kopji)
Point-by-point on
The Atheist Test (on which the video from the OP appears based):
Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."
Nice try, Mr. Comfort, but life has several aspects that a cola can lacks, most notably the capacity for self-organization and replication, which exist all the way down at the molecular level of proteins and DNA. That means that even primitive life has a capacity for generating complexity that a soda can does not.
The banana-the atheist's nightmare.
If all life were as conveniently useful as the banana, you might have a point. If nature were one happy "accident" after another, with all our needs being served by it as easily as you say that some of our food needs are served by the banana, we might easily conclude that these "accidents" weren't accidents, and the world was indeed designed with us in mind. Unfortunately, this is far from the case.
I might also add that the banana isn't quite as convenient as you imply. It still has to be plucked from a tall plant, and it takes many workers and equipment to make it accessible to those outside the rain forest.
Charles Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).
Tsk, tsk. This is quoted out of context, since Darwin then goes on to say, "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
George Gallup, the famous statistician, said,
"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."
George Gallup's comment that "all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" is technically correct, but irrelevant. Evolution does not posit what Gallop suggests, that a complex system arises all at once by sheer random chance.
Albert Einstein said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe--a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
This is merely an opinion of a famous man, not a proof of anything.
Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges?
No. If this is an attempt to argue against evolution, it is making the same mistake as Gallop above, arguing against a claim that the theory of evolution does not contain.
The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.
The statement "The evidence for God is weak and unconvincing" is a more modest claim, and one with many facts to back it up.
Could it be that the "atheist" can't find God, for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman?
The analogy is severely flawed. Thieves don't defy the police by denying their existence, and even thieves who don't want to find policemen often do nonetheless.
