“Science may never be able to prove who created that system.”
That question implies that the system had to have been created by a ‘who’, but there’s nothing to prove that it had to have been a ‘who’.
Maybe a what? A machine rather than an entity?
A who is more reasonable than any other option.
Everything we know about randomness shows clearly that it does not lead to increased order. Intelligence begets systems, randomness does not.
And there's nothing to disprove it either. As I'm sure you're already well aware. You're ostensibly just expressing your own personal preference in the matter (e.g., there is no God, no "Mind" at work in Nature).
Yet science is still left with the problem of accounting for a natural source of biological information, while at the same time denying the idea of mind or consciousness as necessarily involved (based on what we can directly observe). Indeed, the hard-core materialists out there insist that "mind" is merely an epiphenomenon of physical processes in the brain. It has no other reality; by this definition, it cannot stand as a cause of anything in nature.
And yet human observations over a range of some five+ millennia up to now would seem to confirm that we have no evidence of intelligence or any of its products (ideas, codes, languages, information, etc.) apart from thinking minds. Over the past several decades, the generation of information and its subsequent successful communication in biological systems has been increasingly recognized as indispensable to biological organization and function.
At the same time, science cannot explain how simple matter can generate the type of information that we routinely associate with the idea of a genetic code. In other words, DNA, a material molecule, is a code-bearer. It is not itself the code, and again it remains to be seen how a material molecule all by itself can acquire the attribute of intelligence which is at the basis of all forms of "coding" for successful communication in the natural world.
AussieJoe, if you have an explanation of how an inorganic material molecule — a simple physical system — can get together with other physical objects just like itself, and then somehow bootstrap itself spontaneously into a living, sentient entity which then acquires knowledge about how to configure itself in synch with all the other molecules into a complex living system, I'd be so very glad to hear it. Certainly Darwin's theory is completely silent on this point.
For one thing, Darwin himself never even heard of the gene. Darwinian evolution theory, at bottom and to this day, bears all the hallmarks of nineteenth-century scientific presuppositions. The legacy continues in the basic approach of molecular biology nowadays, which evidently continues to believe that whole living systems can be explained entirely by the mechanistic behavior of their parts.
BTW, it may interest you to know that the Unmoved Mover, the uncaused First Cause, is a philosophic, and not preeminently a religious idea. The entire case for the necessity of an uncaused First Cause is based on pure logic. You can read more about this Here.
Makes far more sense than a what or nothing or just shrugging your shoulders and saying everything just happened all by itself.