This happens to be part of what's taught at most Catholic schools in the U.S. Yes, that's a good reason for God. +2 por tu :). Also, could you then say that God used Evolution as His tool? Think programming, and how you can do a complicated task quickly if you set some variables up, e.g. Spore.

I think what you mean is: could it not be compatible with Science that the Universe was created by a Higher Power? If that is what you mean, I agree, and so does the great Stephen Hawking in his book "A Brief History of Time".

It's not scientific to say that the universe was created by a Higher Power or Being. NOTE!! Saying it's not scientific doesn't mean that it's untrue. Something that is scientific is something that is testable by experiment or observation. More importantly it is something whose opposite can be shown by experiment or observation to be untrue. Suppose that the Universe was not created by a Higher Power or being. What observations or experiments can we do that will invalidate this hypothesis? We could observe this Being in a telescope, or measure the Higher Power on an instrument. This has not been successfully done. Therefore established science does not include this hypothesis as one of its physical laws. But it can still be true.

It is *not* scientific to make such a statement in such a definite way, as there is no testable evidence to support it. It would be scientific to say 'we don't know for certain exactly how (or why) the universe started', which still leaves plenty of room for faith in a 'creator'. The fact that there are gaps in our knowledge of universal origins neither proves nor disproves the existence of any 'higher power'. Faith is great to have, and a huge comfort to many, but it won't by itself *prove* anything to anyone except the person who believes, and the people who are of a like mind. If I'm right (and I'm happy to be corrected) Christianity has taught that the most important thing is to believe in this higher power without proof, as if one has proof, who needs faith? That does not mean that we shouldn't attempt to gain further knowledge about where we and the rock we stand on comes from and why. Science has this task and I don't think because it searches for answers of this type that it is diametrically opposed in essence to the idea of faith. The two things are not mutually exclusive, but we still come back to the same thing, that we just don't know (in a scientifically testable sense).

Singwell is wrong, Stephen Hawking does not agree that the universe was created at all, in his book "A Breif History in Time" he states correctly the following; According to Stephen Hawking his attendance at a 1981 Vatican Conference on cosmology reawakened his interest in the origin and fate of the universe. It was a combination of his own identification with Galileo and the pope's remarks about the big bang: "He [the pope] told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, NO MOMENT OF CREATION. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death!" - Stephen Hawking It just pisses me off when you fundamentalist try to bend the facts to support your mythological, esoteric, anti-scientific beliefs. Ya got some audacity.

1) It was not always the case in the past, but today, where "higher" powers or beings appear, science disappear. 2) "Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions. The goal of the sciences is to answer only those that pertain to perceived reality. Also, science cannot possibly address nonsensical, or untestable questions, so the choice of which questions to answer becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, science tests some aspect of the world and attempts to provide a precise, unequivocal framework to explain it." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#Goal.28s.29_of_science