wow, nice discussion, shame i missed it
just like to add two little things on the faith vs belief.. the VAST majority of people do not understand science, and have a rather intense "belief" structure in science, its kind of a religion for most people, and feel personally attacked if anything in there is questioned, when that is supposed to be the basis of science. scientists are often guilty of this as well, even automatically disregarding fellow scientists when their views differ from " the established"
A little imho on this comment " this chart looks like C# code to me. It is incredibly organized into "namespaces" and "classes" that can be mixed and matched to get different results. How is that not made? I would never think a programming language like C# just came about by chance. "
.. I would say remember you are not looking at reality, you are looking at our (mathematical) interpretation of it, devised to make sense to us, of course it is going to be organised, because otherwise the model would be useless to us.
to make my point here is an example: everyone knows the planets orbit around the sun right? and this is so elegant and nice.
now think about two balls , one orbiting the other, look at it from the point of view of the other and you will see who orbits who depends on which point you choose to observe from. same applies when there are more balls present.
therefore you can say the center of the solar system is the earth of even the moon if you like, for "reality" it is irrelevant if the centre of the solar system is a dot somewhere inside the sun or inside the earth or wherever and it is just as true. however the guy calculating planetary positions is left with weird intersecting ellipses instead of almost circles and has a lot more work so why not think of it as a circle with the sun at its centre?
so we CHOOSE to see it as a circle ( ellipsoid) because then we can use easier math this way.
does it mean in reality the orbits are designed thus? the question is meaningless.
we choose the formulas we use, because we can easily use them to build things/test theorems etc that is one of the cornerstones of science. it deals with the "how" of things, not the " why".
seeing patterns in the rules and models we choose to apply can be indicative of hidden patterns in reality but this does not have to be the case.
a purely personal point of view is that evidence of planning/system in creation is often seen in living beings.. with critters like bombardeer beetles the evolutive advantage of having half the system seems null and the chances of this defense evolving in one purely random mutation stretches belief imho.