I always find these quite refreshing to read. Something to be clear about is that it's not a brand new argument, nor a "scientific argument for God" or irrefuta

I always find these quite refreshing to read. Something to be clear about is that it's not a brand new argument, nor a "scientific argument for God" or irrefutable argument per se; it's providing a more casual everyday suggestion about God using some data that happens to come from science. Particularly, it points out the unlikeliness of life, which can be a sign if you are open to there being an agency behind it (in a "God's been leaving hints" kind of way), but if you're not would always be ascribed to the "unthought-of-yet explanation". Which is why it's also not so surprising that Kraus wrote a follow-up for the New Yorker complaining that evidence of a gap isn't evidence for God as we can't dismiss the "unthought-of-yet" material explanation, or that there might be reasons for those odds to be smaller. (Those kinds of rebuttal pieces inevitably come across as Scrooge bah-humbugging the sunset in response to someone's casual remark that God's got a pretty cool set of paints...) Science is an engine for providing material explanations for phenomena; it has no "there is no material explanation for this" option. This has not changed in thousands of years (though we only somewhat-formalised science as a field of endeavour more recently, empirical testing as a form of epistemology goes all the way back to "is this berry poisonous?"). So much so, that you'll even find bible verses talking about it: Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that ... what is seen was not made out of what was visible John 3:8 (NLT) Just as you can hear the wind but can't tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can't explain how people are born of the Spirit.