KateWild:
The example is real. It is comaparable in the sense that we can predict things without all the data. If there is a risk of harm or danger we asses the risk and make our own predictions. We decide what is or isn't probable. We don't all agree.
Your other example is not at all comparable. 'Carbon is complex' is a subjective assertion, not data that can be used for calculating the probability of a supernatural 'creator'. Apart from that, 'predicting' based on limited or no data is called guessing. You might suppose or conclude that there is a 'creator' based on your opinions, but that has no bearing on any probability.
Organic chemistry is one way I enquire about theological theories, science without religion is lame. You don't get the full picture if they aren't combined. In turn religion without science is blind, you get uneducated churgoers who worship God with no idea about the scientific facts. This is dangerous.
Statements like "science without religion is lame" and "religion with science is blind" are rhetorical throwaway sound-bites. Scientists have accomplished a great deal for humanity without needing to defer to religion. Religious superstitions have often been an impediment to the growth of knowledge.