Imagine that you travel back in time to ancient Japan and meet two men: Jiro and Akira. You ask the two men: "What do you think causes earthquakes?"
Jiro immediately declares "Everyone knows that earthquakes are caused by Namazu, the giant magical fish!"
Akira says that Jiro has never actually proved that Namazu exists, and further has never offered proof of Namazu causing earthquakes. You ask him again what he thinks causes earthquakes, and Akira simply says "I do not know what causes earthquakes." Although he admits his answer is less satisfying than Jiro's, Akira insists that it is irresponsible to accept answers without evidence.
Please bear in mind that you're never going to be able to explain the real answer to them. It took geology decades to accept plate tectonics as an explanation for earthquakes, and that took a rather sizable amount of evidence, including evidence that is based on other scientific facts like magnetism, which would require further evidence for Jiro and Akira.
Once you account for the evidence that is based on previous scientific discoveries, you would have to recreate centuries of experiments and observations to convince Jiro and Akira of plate tectonics. Of all the explanations Jiro and Akira are capable of understanding, Namazu is honestly the one that probably makes the most sense to them.
So which answer do you think is correct? Jiro's answer, or Akira's answer?
Jiro can explain earthquakes, but Akira cannot explain earthquakes. In fact, Akira's answer will involve waiting centuries for a correct answer, while Jiro can explain earthquakes right now. If Jiro can explain earthquakes and Akira can't, doesn't that mean Jiro's explanation is therefore proved and that Namazu is real? Do you think Namazu is real?
Teleological Arguments
As you have no doubt figured out for yourself, this is comparable to many arguments made by modern Christians and Muslims regarding teleology. Jiro represents their explanations and arguments for many things.
Like Jiro, they insist that having an explanation proves that their explanation is correct. They think having an answer is what matters. They can "account for" the universe, while they insist others cannot, therefore their answers are correct. What matters is not having answers, what matters is having answers that are independently verifiable.
Jiro may have an explanation for earthquakes, but Jiro only has the illusion of knowledge and the illusion of wisdom because he never actually proved that Namazu causes earthquakes. His only evidence of Namazu causing earthquakes is to ask "Well, how else do you explain earthquakes?"
Here is what many modern theists fail to understand. Akira does not owe Jiro an alternate explanation for earthquakes. No one owes Jiro an alternate explanation for earthquakes. If Jiro wants to claim that Namazu causes earthquakes, Jiro has to provide evidence of Namazu causing earthquakes.
You cannot prove A by what you don't know about B. If you want to say that A is true, then you have to actually provide evidence for A.
The ancient Greeks never provided evidence of Zeus creating lightning. "How else do you explain it?" was evidence enough for them.
The ancient Vikings never provided evidence of Thor creating thunder. "How else do you explain it?" was evidence enough for them. Jiro never provided evidence of Namazu creating earthquakes. "How else do you explain it?" was evidence enough for him.
Argument From Ignorance and Just-So Stories
What I have described is called an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. A is true because no one provided evidence for not A (or for a competing explanation). The ancient Greeks never encountered an explanation for lighting that was more satisfying to them than Zeus, therefore they believed that Zeus created lightning.
I want to stress again, no one owes you an alternate explanation when you make a claim. To insist that they do is to commit an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
You can ridicule other explanations all you want, or ridicule what you regard as a lack of other explanations, but the fact remains that if you want to say something is true, you have the burden of providing direct supporting evidence of your claim. Demanding alternate explanations is not supporting evidence. Refusing to understand alternate explanations is not supporting evidence.
If you cannot provide supporting evidence, then you have no basis for saying that something is true. I suspect that theists believe the things they believe because they think it is embarrassing to say "I don't know." I find this rather childish. One should never feel shame for saying "I don't know" if that is the most honest answer, and pretending to know is far more humiliating than admitting that you don't know. I would invite theists to read Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling. It is a delightful children's book that provides all manner of fanciful explanations for why the world is the way that it is. Hopefully, reading this book will illustrate why having an explanation is not in and of itself significant. Any fool can provide an answer to any question provided that you're not picky about whether or not the answer is true.