Your whole argument is faulty because you based it on the faulty premise that science is the ultimate infallible epistemological means and that nothing can be proven without it. However, the very claim that nothing can be proven without science cannot be proven through science (it is a statement that belongs to philosophy, which is not a branch of science), so it's a paradox.
Actually, I would say that science is the best tool we have for data-gathering and analysis. It isn't the be-all end-all, of course, but it is an extremely valuable resource and has done a
lot for humanity.
Furthermore, science claims that the only means of achieving knowledge is by using the capabilities of our brains, but it defines the brain as the end result of a mindless unguided process, so what reason is there to believe its capacity to tell us the truth?
I have no idea what this means.
There is no way to prove anything from the big bang to
stellar formation to the beginning of life with science.
All are extra-natural or supernatural.
Um... I believe the big bang has quite a lot of evidence for it within physics. You'd do better to bet for it than against it, at the very least.
How did energy begin, when the first law of thermodymics
says it can neither be created nor destroyed?
Not a relevant question in the discussion of evolution vs creationism. I believe scientists respond with "IDK" and then an educated guess, when you ask them how all this stuff got here. (They don't claim to be all-knowing.)
If the Dover trial concluded there is no evidence for creation, then it came to the right conclusion.
The subject was where the evidence lay; because it was about whether creationism could be taught to schoolchildren as science.
I could accept that, but instead of just saying God did it they try their hardest to present any kind of evidence that would support their cause.
"God did it" isn't an answer.
How God did it, is. (Example: God created life as we know it using abiogenesis and evolution.).
The worst and dumbest site on the internet. I wish I was joking.
I don't think our courts of law accept anything on faith anymore.
Science has nothing to do with faith; it only bothers itself with objective data. Courts tend to be fairly similar, because that is the court's job.
\There's the fact that every living cell contains an unimaginably complex code and specified, complex information and machinery again predicted by belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God, not by a random, purposeless universe, and not adequately explained by Darwinian processes.
Darwinian processes have nothing to do with whether the universe has a purpose or where life came from. It's merely about how life continues, and is related.
How can you argue against something when you don't even know what it is?
Evolutionists resort to unobserved processes like spontaneous generation and unguided Darwinian macro-evolution to explain the gaping holes in their theory. The debate is far from over, and the evolutionists, especially the Neo-Darwinists, have not "won." There are plenty of Christian apologetics books out there that bring excellent scholarship to this debate. I suggest starting with Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator."
It's great that there are Christian apologists out there, but uh... there are very few scientists who deny evolution, and most of those aren't in the field of biology.
I don't know all the particulars of the Dover trial, but the case for creation is quite strong.
Not in science it isn't.
