There's an understatement if I ever heard one. Science isn't even close to having the answers yet, and hard as they work, there's never going to be any way for science to determine the answers because dealing with origins is dealing with something that cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. You cannot apply the scientific method to the topic. It is and always will be a philosophical consideration. For scientists to pretend that science is going to provide the answers to origins, be it life or the universe, demonstrates a fair degree of delusion on their part.
Compare and contrast that with creationists. They are the ones who say life ‘just pooped’[sic] into existence at the command of a supernatural entity and they are the ones who say they have all the answers; ‘God did it’.
As opposed to the current *scientific* scenario that everything kind of *‘just pooped’[sic] into existence* all by it little self, out of something called singularity, out of nothing , from nowhere, for as yet unknown and inexplicable reason?
And all by itself, set up its own laws by which to operate and then in violation of those laws, formed itself into stars, planets, globular clusters, and galaxies, and then all by itself gave rise to coded, information carrying DNA that evolved itself into sentient life?
Sure, I'll contrast that to believing that God did it and laugh at the absurdity of those who mock the idea of a creator as being unreasonable.
What science proposes now is pure speculation and hasn't passed beyond the level of science fiction.
So, remind me again that thinking that order and complexity demand an intelligent cause or creator, *Goddidit* as it were, is laughable?
Well, that definitely seems to be the way things are going nowadays.
This is the kind of mess you get into when universal, "objective" Truth is denied.
Like they are trying to do at the University of East Anglia, climate-change division....
I do not think it possible that a computer model can reliably simulate Truth. What human being could possibly write an algorithm for that in the first place???
Thank you so much for your insights, dear metmom! Great post!
You criticize science for supposedly thinking that it has all the answers and then, when the absurd unreality of such a claim is pointed out, criticize them admitting that they don’t know everything and ridiculing their attempts to aquire knowledge.
Ever considered that your arguments lack cohesion?
An origin story beginning with a singularity is not ex nihilo. It relies on space, time and physical causation.
That is the weakness of all such theories (inflationary, multi-verse, multi-world, ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, etc.) Because of the CMB measurements, we know the universe is expanding, i.e. that there was a beginning of real space and real time.
As Jastrow said (paraphrased) that was the most theological statement ever to come out of modern science.