Ryan that exact thing is discussed in the article. Basically both the people involved in the discussion have a chuckle at 7th day creationists. Basiclaly they favour theory that genesis in actuality discusses the big bang and should not be taken (excuse the pun) for gospell.
An element of "creation" whilst this fits in a sentence nicely it links dangerously close to the assumption that I am arguing against. Creation infers a 3rd party had a hand in it.
Rather than creation, I think words better suited are "coming into being"
I find a theory thats answer such as a god, that is excluded from its own rules of creation and excluded from the theory is ridiculous. Dawkings mentioned it. That answering a question of extreme improbability with an answer that in turn has its own larger improbabilities is outside the reasons of science and logic.
I think a lot of Religious types are thrown by the fact that they see anyone who is Areligious or not following their doctorine is infact an Atheist. This is not something I claim to be, I simply do not have the intelligence or background in physics, chemistry, astro physics, neorology, theology and basically any other amount of the sciences and arts to be able to be an Athiest. Whenever someone tells me they are, my simple answer is "Do you think you are smart enough to be an Athiest"
I am not, and I refuse to believe that anyone here, barring perhaps The Gronk have the background to safely say "There is no god". This is where the religion side of the debate falls apart. Most of the "Atheist" scientists, are simply saying. "Look, we dont know what is going on. We wont know for a long long time, we have assumptions and theories, but we are working towards an answer. It may well be a god, it may be a random string of events, we just dont know, so lets sit back, not decide on an answer and study towards it"
I can tell you which camp is speaking the most logic there!
