The problem posed: "... we should not confuse the mechanisms by which the universe works either with its cause or its upholder."
Pretty straightforward, eh?
Here's the response this gets: "The whole car_needs_a_designer so everything_needs_a_designer meme fails as soon as you account for the fact that living cells self-replicate and reproduce, cars (and other inanimate objects) do not. That alone shreds Lennox's point."
Except, it doesn't. The point is, let me say this slowly, what needs an explanation is the universe itself -- the whole show --, and the regularities (what we often refer to as "laws") by which it operates. Since self-replicating, living cells are part of this "show", referring to them describes something but explains nothing.
"Natural laws" are an observation, not an explanation.
Which has been the point of the last half dozen or so posts.
But, in fairness, so has the point that, under darwinism, our brains are not designed for abstract thought; indeed, they are not designed at all for anything. So, we really ought not to expect too much from them.