I'm going to take the position that religion has nothing to do with science.
Do you disagree?
Why?
TRUE religion would be shown to be true by science -but it should be acknowledged that science increases from an initial perspective of ignorance-whereas God -though perhaps beginning from the most simple possible state -would now have a complete perspective.
Science -as we know it -is about 3,500 years old -and the universe about 13.8 billion years old.
That says a great deal about science -which arrived at that number by reverse-engineering.
It also says a great deal about the scientific minds involved -which did none of the work necessary to produce their minds and their capabilities.
They only employed them skillfully.
..but that is the issue... did our minds take "work"?
God -as "I AM THAT AM" -existed AS SUCH (though all before) from the point at which God was able to declare such -and existed as all beforehand.
If we are considering "creation", then we are considering the difference between an ORIGINAL mind -and MASS-PRODUCED minds. It does not matter HOW they were created -whether directly or part of an "executable" which also included a predetermined type of environment (what we call the universe and DNA-based evolution) -or some combination of such -it matters whether or not they required creation.
What we -who are indeed mass-produced -do with our minds is somewhat of our decision -but we had absolutely no power of decision regarding the initial existence or design of our minds.
An "ORIGINAL" mind would likewise not have been able to decide that it would exist and/or develop -but an ORIGINAL MIND WOULD HAVE HAD PERSONAL DECISION-MAKING ABILITY AS INCREASINGLY ABLE. It would have developed by the most basic form of evolution -pre-universe natural development -the most basic characteristics of the most basic components (which long-preceded the elements and DNA-based evolution -which are so
purposefully-complex as to have required creation)
An original mind would have required its own work as increasingly able -but the mass-production of extremely capable minds -which did no work themselves -would have required the WORK -including FORETHOUGHT -of an ALREADY-EXTREMELY-CAPABLE MIND.
All things must be preceded by that which makes them both generally possible -and then SPECIFICALLY possible.
The universe-singularity itself essentially contained all of the information necessary to change what was into SPECIFICALLY what is now (except where creativity is applied afterward). It is not the simplicity to be expected in the beginning.
"Science" would eventually determine that a creative mind would
necessarily have developed BEFORE what we call the singularity could have been packaged or executed -or IN TANDEM WITH its own pre-universe complex environment -as they would initially be the same thing.
Just as science solved the mystery of the beginning of the physical universe while floating around on a rock within it -not having been there to see it happen, so I believe it could determine such about necessary creativity. However, it would require interest in doing so.
