The postulate that "scientists believe in a random universe" is arrived at by asking "why?" until we get to the root of the matter. No scientist, of course, will come out and say "I believe in a random universe", at least, in so many words (although some have called the universe a cosmic "accident"). Nor do I place all scientists into this group, just the ones that begin with nontheistic or pantheistic premise and set out to use knowledge from God to disprove his existence - the same knowledge that you say leads you to God. To state that such knowledge leads one away from God cannot be done without conscious, deliberate effort, since the natural response is to open one's eyes and see that everything around us, fitting together so beautifully into a whole, came from an intelligent Designer, not brutal, random, processes.
I would ask you: Is not the proposition absurd that life sprang from non-life without any guiding purpose, intelligence sprang from nonintelligence, culture from non-culture? This (to me) seems to require a great deal more faith than belief in the biblical account, with a sovereign God who created all things.
You are incorrect, sir.
since the natural response is to open one's eyes and see that everything around us, fitting together so beautifully into a whole, came from an intelligent Designer, not brutal, random, processes.
I keep asking, but I don't see an answer yet -- do you base your conclusion on anything more than, "the world is beautiful, therefore it must have been designed"? Is that your whole argument in a nutshell, or is there more to it than meets the eye?
While you're at it, please explain why this "design" just happens to have been done in a way that is 100% consistent with an evolutionary origin, and why the designer (the IPU's again, I'll bet) seems to have gone out of the way to avoid any design features that were inconsistent with an evolutionary origin.
I await elucidation.
I would ask you: Is not the proposition absurd that life sprang from non-life without any guiding purpose, intelligence sprang from nonintelligence, culture from non-culture?
No, it is not, because I've seen overwhelming amounts of evidence that it has, and understand a great deal about the processes by which such things can occur. I've even watched such processes achieve amazing results with my own eyes, so I can personally verify that they actually work and aren't just some "what if" hypothesis.
This (to me) seems to require a great deal more faith than belief in the biblical account, with a sovereign God who created all things.
I don't see how it is somehow a greater leap of faith to accept what the massive amounts of evidence indicates, rather than believing that an infinitely powerful, infinitely knowing, infinitely loving entity manages to exist because, well, he does, and he hides from any attempt to actually examine his existence, so there.
Sounds a lot like believing in Hank to me, and I don't find that one really convincing either.