Intelligent life is not a reliable piece of evidence for God

The intelligent design argument is widely used by theists, by this is a very flawed argument.

For starters, there's literally billions, hell, maybe trillions of planets in the universe. The idea that life could not develop on even one of them sounds ridiculous. Imagine being on a planet that was situated too close to its sun. Does God exist there? I mean, the planet did fail to sustain life. From the perspective of that planet, would it be possible to discern whether God exists or not? Take jnto account to collapsed stars, failed solar systems, and the number of extinct species on the Earth.

Moreover, there are practical explanations that are being developed for this. Obviously, the theists will reject most of them, because it is suppossedly, just a theory. Yet, just because it is not able to convince you for certain, does not mean that if you make up a magical explanation, it'll become correct.

I can accept God as a hypotheses. But you need to prove that your answer is actually correct. A plausible hypotheses, is not automatically correct.

Imagine being a caveman in 10,000BC. You see lightning in the sky. Now, obviously, if we give our scientific explanations to them, they'll obviously reject it, and it would seem ridiculous to them. Does that mean it was Thor, or Zeus, controlling the lightning? Just because we don't know for sure, doesn't mean that YOU are right for sure. Don't know, and being wrong, are two different things.

The same way we found a practical explanation for lightning, we will probably find a verh good practical explanation for intelligent life, evolution, and all that. Theists do not think that evolution disproves God, however, it would explain intelligent design from a practica point of view. Thus the intelligent life argument becomes invalid there. Theists state that life does not come from non life. Miller Urey experiment, for example, does show that it may be possible. Moreover, it reinforces my point, not knowing the answer, does not mean that you can make il whatever explanation you want, and it'll become correct.

Moreover, it does not point to a specific creator. Christians cannot use this to prove the CHRISTIAN God, nor can Hindus use it for their God alone. Hell, I can make up a religion tommorow and use this argument as proof. You understand how flawed this is?