We are getting way off topic, but whatever. How do you pick which if the 9,999 creation myths to choose from? ID isn't taken anymore seriously in the scientific community than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the world being carried on a giant turtles back? When you don't know something, you don't "open it up to all options" because there are an infinite amount of options. Who gets to choose these options? Science has figured out alot of things we didn't think it would. Why would I think that given enough time it won't figure out the origins of the Universe? Agreed Let's say that science and ID are on equal footings as to the origins of the Universe, pre-Big Bang. Fine. We don't know pre-Big Bang origins. But, when you look at the overall body of work, ID has failed to prove any of its claims after the Big Bang. Science, however, has a great record of proving things. I'll go with science, thanks. Science says the verdict it out at the moment. I'm fine with that. I don't have to invent explanations to reconcile with my worldview.
Where is a scientific paper that explains where the ingredients from the Big Bang came from and where those ingredients came from and so on? You cannot disprove my statement without giving an example or at least one piece of substantiating evidence. You prove it! My evidence is common knowledge just the same as it's common knowledge that pigs can't fly. I wouldn't expect you to prove that. You're right. I don't know you but I do know you're a very intelligent person and I do enjoy debating with you. My notion is that there's nothing science provides to explain what I mention above and if you or anyone knows differently then you should share. All I can say to that is my evidence is the lack of scientific explanation. You say it's out there and I say it's not. Maybe we are talking about different things? Are you prepared to give me an actual flowchart of the occurrences prior to the the Big Bang including origin of the ingredients that I can evaluate? No no. I believe we've learned lots about the universe just not what I point out above. Science has come a long way but there's still lots of unanswered questions and some that will never be answered IMO.
By the way, I forgot to ask: If the Universe is so complex as to indicate the presence of a Creator, then the Creator would have to be that much more complex. So then, who created the Creator?
my $0.02 as a scientist (albeit not an "evolutionist" :lol--- science will never be able to prove evolution or creation of man. "never" is a very strong word in science, but no stronger than "prove". avery could prove that dna is the transforming principle, because he could do an experiment. the science of the origins of man is observational and correlative. you cannot go back to the past and repeat the evolution of man in an experiment. certainly doesnt mean that evolution did not happen, sort of like it cant be proven that jesus was not the son of god. but if you look at the evidence and decide if it is more likely that man has a common ancestor with apes or a mysterious entity created man, the answer is obvious. you cant "prove" to me that hitler hated jews or that some guy named shakespeare wrote some plays, but are you gonna believe the contrary just because you were born into a christian family?
Simply by choosing the hypothesis that are mainstream. This may be the case in science but in general if you don't know something you should be open to all possibilities. Because the things that science has figured out are all post Big Bang. For one moment view the universe as being created by ID. Now ask yourself why would science's record of proving things have any bearing on your belief in ID? If the universe was created by ID science would still prove things. If the universe wasn't created by ID science would also prove the same things. Science has neither proven or disproved ID. You seem to focus on post Big Bang. I don't think that's where the crucial answers will ever be obtained regarding the origins of the ingredients in play before the Big Bang. I think the "silver bullet" can only be found prior to the Big Bang and unfortunately no matter how much science learns post Big Bang it will not lead us to the answer.
There is more to life than logic. A simply logical being is not complete. Probably a result of male-dominated society. I don't think that religion is detrimental to society as a whole. That's a mighty bold statement from someone in the minority who is smarter than the rest of the world. There is no doubt that humanity is flawed, but secular regimes probably have worse records in terms of freedom than the US, which owes a lot to Christianity. How is the secular government of China doing in terms of freedom of thought?
Maybe the creator created the creator, maybe all the complexities are a result of not understanding the true nature of the universe, maybe everything is a lot more simple than we can fathom. A lot can't be proven, but it doesn't hurt to be open to possibilities. I try to stay open to the possibility that God is really nothing, but I just can't reconcile the existence of will and love. Does science define will?
No one created the creator, as it is the prime mover. A theist's definition of God does not require a complex being to be the creator, and this Dawkins arguement is self defeating. According to Dawkins complexity is caused by all the parts of a something or other working in a way that is not likely to happen by chance. God is a being of spirit, and thus has no parts, so complexity is not a trait that would normally be ascribed to Him by the definition presented in the Blind Watchmaker.
You cannot prove your statement without it either. More grand assumptions. Yet another assumption. A major unattributed assumption that you make is that time and matter have to be accounted for "before" the big bang. The origin of the universe--the big bang--was not simply the sudden appearance of matter in an eternally preexisting void, but the coming into being of time itself. Time began with the cosmic origin. There was no "before". In the eloquent words of Paul Davies: This the current state of science. Is there more to be learned? Certainly, but most of what has been learned is valid and testable and owes nothing to religious dogma. By the laws of relativity . . . time, energy, and matter all were created in a singular event 15 billion years ago. But Quantum physics continues to reveal new possibilities. One area called Loop Quantum Gravity theory may give insight into a pre-existing collapsing universe that gave way to the big bang. What Happened Before The Big Bang? Never say never. Say "unlikely" and avoid these semantic traps. I will trip you with them. Now . . . at long last . . . show me the evidence for your grand assumptions that science has no idea how the universe began.
