The necessity of an uncaused Creator is shown not by the design of the universe, but by the existence of the universe. The design of the universe is proof of a designer. But the existence of a universe filled with things which are of their nature contingent is proof enough of an uncaused, noncontingent Creator.
The Creationists make religion ridiculous, with the absurd notion that the STORY of Creation is the same as the FACT of Creation ex nihilo, which is all that Scripture teaches. God made the world by SAYING So, by a creative act. There is no indication in the OT or the NT that one of God's purposes in revelation was the teach us any scientific facts.
Once again, where did you get the idea of a 'Creator' independent of your decision, without any evidence, that there is one? There is no 'proof' of anything, other than what exists exists. Anything else is a Assumption, an Assertion without Proof, a Begged Question, a Smuggled Premise.
I found it interesting that each of Asimov's 'Arguments' were really fallacies in the creationist argument. Like the guy the I responded to earlier, he just went back the same, Argument by Analogy Fallacy the Isaac had already discounted with his 'Base 4' argument. Either one abandon's creationism or one abandon's logic. There is no other option.
Then who designed the designer?
Had to go back and agree with this part.
Great point, Arthur McGowan, and well worth stressing.
Evolutionary theory makes a strong case for the "spontaneous" generation of increasingly more complex biological forms from very simple forms. But what it does not do is account for how specifically human consciousness can have arisen from lower forms which appear not to possess consciousness of other than the most rudimentary sort, if even that. Consciousness remains a mystery that appears to be inexplicable in purely materialist terms. In this sense, Darwinist theory is woefully incomplete.