I'd like a better citation than "Einstein said." He wrote: I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What i see in Nature is magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. I don't try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive. From [url=http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001224.html]Religion?Einsteinian or Supernatural?[/url] by Richard Dawkins That certainly doesn't sound like "someone must have written these books," does it? No. The child in the library, presuming that is an authentic quote, is an analogy with which we can all relate, because we've all been there: a vast amount of stuff to learn, yet underlying, unifying patterns to find (language). The deeper we probe into "creation," the less of a job we find for a "creator" to do. That scares the hell out of some believers, who decided to call a halt to further probing by conjuring up "intelligent design" backed by the resigned "Idunnohow" shrug of "irreducible complexity." An assumption of a creator doesn't win by default, just like, over in the "repetitions" thread, aliens from the Andromeda galaxy don't win by default as an explanation for crop art. If someone wants to scientifically posit a creator, then let's have his testable hypotheses, shall we? Let's see what theory he can develop to inform us about the nature of this creator. That's an "unnecessary entity" in Occam's language that only complicates what we already know at this point, and does nothing to further enlighten.