If it's not natural, maybe it's ...

Did you read the Newsweek article that came out a little while ago which says that - according to natural laws - the universe shouldn't actually exist? 

Hmm?  Well, let me think about that.  If the universe shouldn't actually exist according to nature, then maybe its existence is ... dare I say? ... "supernatural."

This article shows one of the biggest, most unscientific problems with scientists.  Notice that it says that one of the biggest puzzles scientists are trying to solve is ... how did matter form after the Big Bang?

They start from the position that there was undoubtedly a "Big Bang," forcing them down a path of fitting all the pieces into the "Big Bang Puzzle."

When, instead, maybe they should start with the question of "Was there really a Big Bang as we assume there must have been?"

A scientist should consider all the possibilities and look at all the evidence and let the evidence guide them to a conclusion.  That is the scientific process.

But when you completely cut off a whole possibility from the start (such as "Could there be a Creator?") and you start your research from a predetermined point (such as "There must have been a Big Bang.  It's the only explanation.  Now let's prove it.") then all the research and results are biased, contorted, misguided, and misleading.

Way to go, scientists!  So great to have such "scientific" people following such a "scientific" process to figure out where things came from and how they work!

(reposted from my other blog)