>If, hypothetically, the original expansion was conducted by a creator, wouldn't that "gradual procedural accumulation" of complexity have Ben set in motion at the moment of creation?
The thing is, you don't have any evidence based reason to think this is true. This is just what would have to be true to salvage Christianity. You have designed this narrative around reaching that goal.
>Rather my point is based on the notion that the scientific community and its greatest minds staked their claim that the universe was NOT expanding, because that idea lended itself to the idea of a creator, which was unacceptable in their minds.
Not all of them, and you're lying when you say it was never acknowledged that steady state was mistaken.
>We did in fact discover that the universe was expanding from a single point contrary to our understanding of physics at the time. I find it telling that you would answer my claim that they appropriated this idea with an accusation that the religious community appropriated some other idea. It's almost an admission that this appropriation did in fact occur in the case of the "Big Bang." I cannot think of any intellectual appropriation more grand than absorbing another group's theory about the nature of the universe itself.
Boy, you're really trying to get as much mileage as possible out of this one single thing, aren't you? How could "appropriation" have taken place when the scientist responsible for discovering the big bang was a priest?
>The universe went from the turmoil of all energy and matter being structure-less to star systems, planetary systems, biological systems, cultural systems, etc. The matter of the universe has ordered itself, the "gradual accumulation of complexity" is the same force I would refer to when I used the word "God."
That process you describe is found nowhere in Genesis, though. Genesis describes an initial, rapid ordering of the universe, then gradual deterioration.
