A similar theory that argued for the possibility , rather than the certainty, of a creator (or creative force) which premised itself on absorbing all scientific truths of the time is perfectly sound as far as I can tell (it’s almost tautologically sound). you can throw whatever facts you want in the mix and the belief will shape itself around that.

I suspect I’m not saying anything new  

Posted by Saurav

I dunno. I don’t really feel like getting into this discussion right now b/c I know that where it counts I’m firmly on your side. We’re all talking about this right now b/c we don’t want creationism to be taught in public schools or passed of as science. But a small part of me bristles slightly at the notion that the idea that one must limit one’s scientific and political discussion of the origins and mechanisms of life to observables, and therefore essentially to evolution, automatically implies that one can have no personal thought of a creator, or that such a thought is as illogical and obviously idiotic as the Denver airport system.

I mean, your notions of what a “creator” can and cannot be seem somewhat limited in scope and flexibility. It is possible to conceive of a god who would exactly not want a Universe that revealed his or her existence in any unarguable way and therefore, sort of let it organize itself. There are theological arguments for guessing that such a god might exist. In my mind those arguments go perfectly in hand with not persuading non-believers with those arguments but that doesn’t mean that believers are necessarily idiots.  

Posted by Saheli

This is more of an argument for creation than against it. 

Posted by DearDarlingDidi