''You've been taking on all comers lately so you're primed for a scrap and over-reading my post.
'unwavering faith in science' basically means you believe in science and the evidence it presents. So do I. And when religion runs counter to science it is no longer religion.''
As I said, whatever you meant, your wording is problematic. I don't have 'faith' in science, or 'believe' in science, I simply see the efficacy of its methods.
''So your logic fails on this point because you need to see the bigger picture.''
I do see the bigger picture.
''So my point stands, science describes beautifully the natural world, but it doesn't have the first clue as to why there is such immutable perfection in the laws of nature or why some pre-matter substance became agitated to then become our universe or why a self-replicating RNA has the ability to become every living organism throughout the universe.''
There is no evidence for the existence of self replicating RNA, or DNA, anywhere in the universe except on planet earth. for all we know this is the only planet in the Solar system, Galaxy, or even the Universe that has life.
Nor is it known what caused inflation, only ideas that are based on physics, quantum fluctuations, various multiverse models, etc. The simple answer is ''we do not know''
It is not science that fills gaps with explanations that are presented as facts. But that is what religion seeks to do, offer explanations that are presented as facts, yet with each religious explanation contradicting the other.
''To imagine that such things are possible in and of themselves is just another book of Genesis, only this time written by scientists. Be careful of holding the very same intransigent ground as the literal fundamentalists. Not all evidence can be presented neatly bundled. A degree of intuitive understanding is also required.''
Imagination is perfectly fine, but being convinced of the truth of this or that idea or religious dogma, based on 'intuitive thinking' can be a mistake.
Intuition is essentially based on the body of information that a brain has available. Consequently, the local Baker or Butcher is not likely to have intuitive insights into the nature of quantum mechanics or more efficient rocket design, but is in relation to his or her own interests. Even so, intuition alone is inadequate, ideas and insights still need to be tested.
As for the origin of the Universe, I'd say the Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is probably stranger than we can imagine.
''There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy [religion]''
