This is a fantastic article. Lots of detail and thought put into it. It's easy to see how deeply this topic matters to the author. It is a source of pain and perplexity to them.

Ultimately the ideas here originate from a strictly materialist perspective, ignoring the metaphysical context of our world while at the same time criticizing a metaphysical God. This doesn't make a lot of sense.

One can argue that the metaphysical realm is not real because it isn't detectable by science. But all of the things that matter to humans are metaphysical. Love, friendship, accomplishment, ideas, numbers, symbols, stories, religion. None of these are detectable by science either, and yet they make up the majority of human experience. So, the materialist view of the world demonstrated in this article is showing up with half a bag of marbles to begin with.

If the author wishes to critisize God for His creation — which betrays a tacit or temporary acceptance of God as real and the world as His handiwork — then why should the author not seek answers in God's other works and revelations? Without any other knowledge or deeper inspection, a solar eclipse appears to be an early bedtime and an unusually swift night. The author and all the poor souls he quotes are stumbling through a strictly material and superficial existence and can't allow themselves to take in all the information available. Conclusions are drawn like a sword against a God who to them is simultaneously the villain and also not real.

If God isn't real, and the universe and DNA and nature don't care about anything, then maybe the author should stop projecting his metaphysical feelings onto spiders.

If God is real, then a thorough examination of all his works would be warranted for anyone taking this inquiry seriously. A scientific mind should consider all evidence. I don't see that happening here.