In reality, of course, religious explanation has no such presumptive default or incumbent status. Religious explanations are just one of many potential explanations for how the world works and compete on equal terms with any other. And when the religious explanation really just boils down to some variant of "god did it", it becomes very obvious how inadequate that is compared to even the worst scientific attempts.
Related: religious apologists constantly try to pretend that criticisms or problems identified with scientific explanations somehow count as points in favor of their religious alternative. This is also a false idea. It is not a debate, where pointing out flaws in your opponent's argument helps yours "win". It is a search for truth, and finding fault with another theory does nothing at all to enhance your own.
It does not.
Here are some example chapter titles:
Homochitality of building blocks
Boipolymer Reproduction
Means of Gene Regulation
Selectively Permeable Membranes
The whole book is just an examination of such scientific issues.
Religion doesn’t come in to it anywhere.
"One purpose of this book is to call out and clarify the leap of faith that atheism implies." - p185
You're now just straight up lying and I'm done with you.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.