Boltzmann’s theory was superior to earlier phenomenological theories of heat, even though his explanation (a mess of tiny particles) was itself totally unexplained.
So the problem with the atheist sacred cow of “Who designed the designer? “God did it” is what atheists should be trying to communicate.
According to this argument, science merely transfers our puzzlement from one phenomenon to another… we don’t simply replace one phenomenon with another.
We replace one phenomenon with a Richard Dawkins, for instance, writes that to explain the machinery of life “by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing.” Why?
Let us ask ourselves what would happen if we required that a successful explanation must itself be explained.