Truly, I don’t have near enough faith to be an atheist. And yes, I mean faith. In one sense, atheists are as religious as anyone else. ... Well the universe, earth, even human body — heck, let’s just take the human eye for that matter — are infinitely more complex than the greatest painting ever done, yet people want to believe it all just happened by chance–no God.
All we see from nothing?
Intricate design throughout the universe (let alone the human body) yet no designer?
All the complexity required just to keep the human body alive?
All the details in place for planet earth to be able to sustain life?
The exact speed of it’s rotation, the exact distance from our sun?
The perfect orbit to keep seasons form lasting forever and casting us into either a permanent freezer or a scorching hot death valley?
I'm trying to be nice so I will limit my condemnation to this: There is simply no excuse for a literate 21st century human being with a computer to be ignorant about what the theory of evolution actually says. Evolution, reduced to its philosophical essence, is about chance and natural selection. Evolution without natural selection is like Christianity without the New Testament, and half the story is worse than no story at all.
It's important to understand that before we even begin to discuss the scientific theories that fall under the rubric of "evolution" that the design hypothesis has immense, probably fatal flaws, flaws that were apparent in the 18th century. It's not just the presence of trivial design flaws. The whole way that terrestrial ecology is structured, relying as it does on predation and parasitism, with every organism existing at the edge of starvation, speaks to "design" of almost supernatural waste, inefficiency and incompetence, not to mention an immorality that eclipses the horror of the Old Testament character of Yahweh. And that's even before we get to 19th science, with the old age of the Earth, biology that revealed the utter lack of horizontal transfer of biological "technology" from one species to another, and, of course Charles Darwin's naturalistic theory of evolution by natural selection.
It is probably true that, to some extent, the habitability of the Earth is a matter of chance. Solar systems do not evolve as do life forms and are not subject to natural selection. However, there are about 200 billion stars in just our own galaxy, and there are about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, for a total of 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Just by comparison, if you dealt that many random hands of bridge, you would receive about 10,000,000,000 perfect hands, with 10 of them dealt in perfect order. It's extremely likely that some planet is ideally situated for the development of life, and of course it is precisely on that planet where life would occur.
The characteristics of life appearing exactly as it appears today is far more improbable by pure chance than merely being ideally situated for life. But, of course, no one suggests that pure chance is the explanation. The explanation is natural selection, where only those organisms with some sort of physical advantage over their peers survive and are able to reproduce.
Evolution takes a long time, longer by several orders of magnitude than would design even by human agency with technology only slightly improved over what we have now: After less than a hundred years of genetics, we are already improving the genomes of selected organisms. Assuming we don't blow ourselves up, drown in our own shit or revert to worldwide totalitarian theocracy, it is entirely plausible that we could develop the technology to create whole ecosystems from scratch in just a thousand years (or even a mere century).
If you're going to employ modern science in your apologetics, it really is incumbent upon you to actually find out what modern science actually says.