Okayfine. So I am not conversant with all the details of Big Bang theories. It is still part and parcel of scientific method to employ probabilities and predictions. That's really all we have to work with.
Predictability works very well when one is dealing with a universe chock-full of design at every turn. If everything has been derived from, and continues to be derived from, a mass of undirected energy, then one must throw predicatability, and even science itself, out the window.
The recurring mantra "religion is not science" finds an equally valid counterpart in "evolution is not science" insofar as the latter can only extrapolate assumptions based on past, unpredictable processes.
I actually think this is a very interesting point. I am not saying I agree that it is an equally valid counterpart, nor do I believe that a scientific theory canNOT be based on the extrapolation of assumptions "based on past, unpredictable processes." But it does make me think.
On the contrary; given the state of the Universe 15 billion years ago, the BB Model predicts the large scale structure of the Universe that we see today to a remarkable degree of accuracy.
The large scale cosmological structure we see today, that existed in the past, and which we will likely see in the future, is predicted by nothing more than an application of the rules of General Relativity and a bit of Quantum Mechanics to the initial conditions of the BB. Those conditions are inferred by empirical observation: take the current state of the large scale structure of the Universe (which is expanding), and "run the clock backwards" using the rules of Relativity and QM, and you obtain the conditions that would have existed at any time in the past.
You cannot simply dismiss an accepted scientific theory that can make remarkably good predictions that span a time frame of 15 billion years with a gratuitous sweep of the hand.
I'm not sure what you're saying, here, but I read it as, "the fact that nature operates according to inviolable principles is proof of design."
It seems that the creationists want to eat their cake and have it, too. It used to be that everything required the active hand of God: even the planets were moved in their courses by teams of angels pushing them by hand. Then the Enlightenment came, which allowed men to see that much of nature was "a machine that would go of itself", and the faithful had to content themselves with a "God of the gaps". Now that the most cherished gaps are closing, all they will ultimately have left to say is, "See? I told you: the lack of gaps is proof of God."
That suits me just fine. That was my starting point, as a Deist. The universe--creation, if you will--is seamless. God or no God, the universe will admit of a self-consistent, self-sufficient, self-contained, natural, materialistic, and simple explanation right down to its very core. It could not have been otherwise: if it hadn't "simply existed" that way, a truly omnipotent God would necessarily have done it that way. Anything less would have been an imperfect failure.
There is the observed fact that humans, gorillas, chimps, et al, share the exact same mutation which prevents the synthesis of vitamin C. The gene is there in all the species, just like it is in all mammals, but in the hominids all share the exact same mistake that keeps it from working. Like it or not, most people, (including *all* biologists that I'm aware of) consider this as evidence of descent from a common ancestor.
It's the same logic used in court to detect plagiarism; identitcal *mistakes* are evidence of copying (that's why mapmakers put imaginary streets on maps)