purely intellectual creation belief does indeed lead to the same place in the end, and is not at all at odds with science
Except that a Creationist worldview requires you to dispense with logic, information, math, physics, etc. You cannot possibly project any tests that are truly scientific with sucjh a view.
It was Pope Benedict who called the Universe an"intelligent project"
How smart is the universe after all Well, as if we understood its size and age, and based upon the interactions between the "Stuff" of the voids and matter, Lloy said that the universe has been responsible for 1X10^122 discrete operations since the Big BAng. Pretty smart. Is that smart enough to evolve itself and life over the 13.8 BILLION YEARS since it cranked up?
When looked at as a series of actions using a 1 and 0 as "Yes or No" the worldview of Creationism tries to claim incredulity that such a vast universe can slef create and evolve. Their argument is based upon ascribing science and evolution as "random". WHen we look at the amount of actions as typical numerical ones, each successive action "Yes or No" LIMITS additional successive actions. SO the trail fo the formation of heavy elements is already pre decided by first forming all that Hydrogen is the initial BB. Once the heavy elements are assempled, nucleation is a "answerable why" because we can understand the why gold runs with quartz or that iron occurs in roughly 6 forms.
As Cyracuz correctly said, science is the "doin the math" and conducting the really boring years of experiments to understand some of the most simple of the interactions between elements and molecules. ALL these actions (and we call them re-actions) are going on now and we can see and understand them if we take the time. When I understand the HOW of the reactions , I can retrace their history 13.8 billion years and slowly deduce a reasonable "why" Its not hard. (Im not saying that its always right because we are tossing out old rules and equations almost daily).
Creationism does not have that capability, no matter what some recent wags have stated in other threads. A Creationist can tag onto a scientific finding and claim it as his own merely by saying "me too". REALLY?. That is fraud and is usually uncovered when most Creationists cannot make any predictions at all because they try to substitute format for substance.
I herein pose a question that we should be considereing in the "light" of some very recent science. Two labs have recreated the neutrino that moves at 1.3 times the speed of light (this is still being checked and rechecked and reviewed). Think of the consequences to cosmology when it is found that mass can move faster than "c".
Creationism suffers from (and makes its biggest claims based on ) TOTAL IGNORANCE OF WHAT ITS EVEN SAYING.
I mean, if the universal intelligence was really out there, why does it take a two and three part process to make heavy elements from the archean hydrogen bomb? We can understand the process and the wonder of the pure action /reaction that chemistry and physics can predict that Creationism has no idea about. Whenever you hear the Creationist arguments (2LOT, order of "creation") I always have to muse whether they are familiar with ros sig line "I dont care if you believe it, just understand it"