Replies

Presumably, science should look for the best possible answer in such a scenrio, correct?

Correct. But it should not simply invent an answer in the absence of evidence (supernatural bearded guy), and then state that he is beyond the capacity to test. While that may be convenient, it is remarkably unsatisfying.

Why then should science not at least allow for the existence of an Intelligent Creator beyond the natural sphere?

Science does allow for it. But there is no evidence to support it. And certainly the assertion of a supernatural creator begs the question, "well where did HE come from"?

There wer scientists in years past (still are some around) that did not believe in Darwin's Theory, and incredibly, they made important discoveries quite well.

Without question.

But it should not simply invent an answer in the absence of evidence (supernatural bearded guy)

The supernatural bearded guy is invented only if you completely disregard the bible. Archeology has proven much of the historical information in the bible is fact. In that respect, even if you wish to write off the supernatural aspects of it, you're left with a book that in many ways is accurate. IMHO, anyone wishing to discredit the bible as legitimate in any way, is simply running from the answers that the bible does provide. Whether quoted scripture disturbs one or not, the fact remains most "intellectuals" only reject it because of the supernatural elements or because it presents an ethical dilemma present in their lives.

Well, I did not invent a supernatural bearded guy (I wouldn't have done the bearded thing). I do not agree with you that the observable things of the universe fail to support an Intelligent Creator-on the contrary, it seems (to me anyhow) that with every new discovery the evidence is built upon. In Darwin's day, I could understand how evolution would seem a very reasonable theory, as he knew nothing of genetics (though it was being pioneered during his time), he had but a small grasp upon geology, a limited view of the vastness and complexity of the cosmos, and a pitifully simple view of the mechanics of life on the cellular level. However, I do not see a world, especialy that wonderful thing we call life, as being capable of arising from nothing through esentialy blind chance. The greatest sticklers I see for evolution are the problems of the origin of matter, space, time, and the origin of life. One may concede that once the building blocks are assembled, it might proceed on its one, ie planets developing, life evolving and leaping over great obstacles. I do not see evolution, at least in a paltry few hundred millin years, arising life to the status is at now, but I suppose it is possible-but then again, quite a few things could be possible. At anyrate, I do not find your arguments against a creator particularly holding: the evidence points to one, it is more reasonable than floundering about for explenations to vainly support your pre-arrived position, namely, an evolutionary origin for everthing.