Re: “Creator” is not a mechanism that is scientifically valid.”
In fairness, some of the greatest scientific minds of the past might disagree, such as Newton and Kepler. Of course that doesn’t mean God exists, but belief in His creative ability does not mean one holding such a belief is necessarily unscientific.
Wouldn’t a purely naturalistic Darwinian have to believe that:
1. Matter, energy, i.e. the universe came into being of its own accord - or,
2. Matter, energy, the universe has always existed - there is no
beginning even though the universe appears to have one and is
expanding.
3. The apparent design we seen in the universe is really “un-designed”
randomness.
Do these beliefs describe valid “scientific mechanisms” simply because they do not mention God? Aren’t such beliefs also “leaps of faith” as well?
I don’t mean to be argumentative, these are just my own musings. I just don’t see belief in God as the creative force behind existence as an “irrational, unscientific” view.
The problem is a “science” that acts like it is virgin birthed, beyond reproach, itself able to determine what the ultimate desideratum of mankind is.
It is showing itself in spades in this stormer character.
By definition, belief that powers operate beyond the laws of nature is unscientific.
As far as Newton and Kepler are concerned, both were very religious. But as important as their scientific contributions are, if they were have any inkling of technological complexity that exists today they would find it incomprehensible and probably satanic.
I don’t really know what Darwin thought of cosmology, but I do know he was heavily influenced by uniformitarianist Lyell, so I imagine he thought the universe had always existed. Of course the concept of an expanding universe was unknown at the time.
Lastly, nature is not random—it is the result of the properties of matter. What appears to be design is a reflection of that.