This is a bit of a red herring. First, natural selection is not the "default explanation for absolutely everything in evolution". In reality, neutral models of evolution are often considered to be the null hypothesis and the existence of natural selection must be inferred by departures from the predictions of that null model.
Natural Selection is not the only hypothesis within the theory of evolution, but it certainly plays a huge part. Taking primacy would likely be mutations and trailing in second would be gene selection. Unfortunately, mutations tend to be so injurious to an organism that one may draw a logical conclusion that mutations directly affect the organism as it relates to natural selection in the negative-- i.e., the organisms greatly affected by mutation are eliminated. There is no demonstrable evidence to suggest that either natural selection or mutations have the capacity to lead to higher taxon.
Second, because the exclusion of God does not make the evidence "secondary" in any way; scientists also exclude fairies, unicorns and Satan from their causal models for the simple reason that their existence cannot be empirically falsified and therefore cannot offer much in terms of material causation.
There is nothing in science, that draws inferences from the material universe, that could directly prove the existence of God. Granted. But that doesn't mean that one could not logically draw upon some conclusions that things just happening for fortuitous reasons are few and far between. Eggastai is simply saying that Darwinism and its uncle, 'Strict Naturalism,' has put science in a chokehold and refuses to accept any alternative hypotheses.
1. human and chimp DNA is extremely similar
Don't you see the presumption in the whole thing? Humans and chimps just happen to share anatomical similarities. Instead of simply assuming that because they share a similar genetic sequence they must be somehow related, why not simply consider that if there were an Intelligent Designer, that at some point, some organisms are going to resemble one another more closely than others.
2. human DNA contains a large number of repeated units of great similarity to viral DNA
Right, but humans share 97% similarity with a field mouse and 52% similarity with a banana. Does that mean we evolved from fruit or could it mean that we know much about the structure of DNA but almost nothing about what that means from an evolutionary standpoint? I mean, all this is still loads of conjecture that rests its case on circumstantial evidence. We're still looking for the smoking gun with some actual evidence either found in stratum or walking amongst us today.
3. the number of nonsynonymous nucleotide differences beween chimp and human DNA is smaller than the number of synonymous differences
Yes, we hear much about the synonymous sequences but almost nothing about non-analogous sequences.
When I look at these facts without any inferential framework I have a great deal of difficulty working out what they signify. How many identical aligned nucleotides should we expect to find between human and chimp? Is 8% a high proportion or a low proportion of apparently viral DNA in the human genome? Why does it look like viral DNA?
Because perhaps DNA is DNA. That might be as asinine as asking why the atoms that comprise a turtle are so similar to the atoms that comprise a rock. Could one be related to other or do we just know what atoms are? I mean, DNA is a very complicated molecule that is still in its infancy as far as it relates to our total grasp of unraveling all its mysteries.
"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
™ Version 4.2
