Lamberth's argument from animism is that  theism is merely reduced animism, animism behind one spirit instead of the many of full animism, and just as superstitious! Supernaturalists can rail against this finding, yet it applies per Lamberth's teleonomic/atelic argument.        How could it matter,without special pleading, to find the one anymore meaningful than the many? Oh, the one means  the Primary Cause and the Ultimate Explanation whilst the many replace natural forces.        No, that won't do as natural causes and explanations themselves are the primary cause and need no more an intent than do natural forces such as the wind. God can hardly add anything other than the personal explanation that William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne allege needed to explain matters fully in that He had the choice of determining outcomes of natural causes  for what we see around us. No, science pellucidly responds with no, randomness and natural necessity accounts for those outcomes.         Had the dinosaurs not disappeared, the cooling-off period and flowering plants had not arrived, neither would we have arrived nor any comparable species. Science finds no intent behind natural phenomena so that why should any rational person think that any such species as we just had to arrive?     That personal explanation is just superstition!       No, belief in the supernatural is just as sensible as belief in a rabbit's foot!       What do you maintain about this new argument?