Top 10 , no order - Winston, Gurley, Cooper, White, Scherff, Beasley, Dupree, Gregory, Williams, and Davis.
What you are postulating is the "God of the gaps" concept. People/scientists can't explain x, therefore x somehow supports god or the supernatural. It's false equivalency. At one point in history humankind couldn't explain germ theory or natural disasters or even thunder storms. The default explanation was "god did it". We (well, most of us anyway) now know the basic causes of these phenomenon. But there are obviously current questions that we can't satisfactorily answer such as "How did the universe begin?" or "How did life start?" There are several theories for these kinds of questions ofcourse, some better than others. In my opinion, saying "god did it" doesn't satisfactorily answers questions like this. In fact, it simply stifles critical thinking and leads to even more absurd questions such as "Where then did god come from?".
God, in all forms from one to many is based on faith, not fact. Some want answers, others want logical answers. The divide is pretty much that simple. I remember when I was questioning the logical flow of the God construct as a teen, and my mom was pissed, not because I was right or wrong, but simply because I questioned. Whenever there is an ideology of non-questioning thought, expect man-made devices to be at the center......
I think many people, both theists and atheists, view this thing from the wrong angle. They view it as if the universe is external to them. That God is external to them. However, when you look at everything in totality from a critical point of view, the interconnectedness of the entire system becomes quite clear. God is not something external, not some guy in the sky making creatures in his shop, but rather, that this entire universe, and every spec of matter and energy, both animate and otherwise, IS God.
Inside of each of you, there are cells and organs that have a particular role in the function of the whole organism comprising "you." Likewise, we, as conscious beings, have a particular role in the organism of God. We, conscious beings, are the "cells" that allow God, the universe, to experience itself.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.
-- Karl Marx
I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you. Evolution is the atheist's explanation for the variety of life forms on planet earth. To put it simply, evolution is the atheists' god. That's why atheists argue tooth and nails over macroevolution theory--despite the fact there's no evidence to prove it.
That makes as much sense as saying that the house and the furniture within it are the man that built the house and put the furnishings inside it. Things that were created cannot equate to the person or the being that created them. Your argument fails.