You do realize, right, that from the point of view of the differential equations that form the mathematical basis of most scientific law, the "initial conditions" need only be a set of conditions known for some arbitrary time, which we call t=0, and not necessarily the condition of the system at its origination. That is, we need only, for example, to know accurately the current position of the plantets to know their positions at all past and future times. That is we can designate the current positions of the planets as the conditions at t=0, and then calculate their positions at any other time, including negative times, which would be past positions and positive times, which would be future times. There's no need to know where the planets were when they were first formed.
If you knwo the fundamental force driving the system then some "asssumptions" (which often makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me") can be made in the model. We can 'assume' the force is constant over the period of evaluation and and we can assume some intial t=o starting point for an exact formulation of convenience (instead of a general formulation of true knowledge).
However, we do not know even know the fundamental force driving the system. All we have are heuristic observations that exclude the forces driving reproduction.
We have certain components of the formula but not other modulating or forcing functions that prevent the current formulas from expiring, converging or diverging wildly.
In the grand schem of things we know practically nothing. Those who are in the business will also admit to that.
Yet we have no evidence to exclude Divine origination. none.
So what kind of scientist excludes, a priori, a possible complete solution without any evidence to support that exclusion?