Your science says the earth essentially created/designed itself, violating what we observe in real life around us.
Did you not notice the problem here? Science involves reaching conclusions that are consistent with our observations. There are several senses of the phrase you described above which do violate what we observe (things like planets simply don't create themselves ex nihilo), and in those senses science considers them falsified.
As for the natural history that various scientists have come together to describe....it is consistent with all the observations.
Naturally you think differently, you think you've found some evidence that demonstrates the inconsistency. You have hubris enough to think that your lay interest in the subject, along with reading a few websites and a holy book hither and thither puts you in a much better place to make a determination about what is and what is not consistent with the evidence.
So let's be honest here - the chances are that you are just another one of the many that thinks they know better. I'm sure you've been a genuine expert in one thing or another in your time. Something you spent 10s of thousands of hours actually
doing not just reading about, but actual vocations.
Surely you are aware that there are things in your expert vocations (and for the sake of ease, let's not consider science or religious issues when considering this) which an intelligent but un-informed layman may think foolish, and that make up a common error for people who are new to the vocation.
If you Thatch roofs, it looks really easy and a passerby might think you are wasting a lot of time and it shouldn't take weeks to do it. But they'd be wrong no matter how clear it is to them that you are wasting time.
So can we please try and engage a little humility here?
One of the things evolutionists are often criticised for is 'just-so stories', and it is something we really need to be aware of. A just so story is essentially an explanation for how things occurred that is non specific (very broad and general) without any specific support.
For example: The leopard got its spots as African hunters used their dark skin to paint the sandy cat with mottles to make them better animals to hunt Zebras down in jungles.
So we need to make sure any story for how snakes came about does not fall into this trap.
Science suggests that snakes evolved from things like Najash rionegrina, snakish creature with stumpy hind legs that existed at the same time as the dinosaurs.
We both agree that the snake 'lost its legs' - the only question that seperates us is how.
You say it was a curse. I know how mutations and natural selection etc is meant to explain it I'm asking you...how does this curse function? What are its mechanics? What evidence would it leave behind? How do we falsify the hypothesis?
I'm not asking about the weather, but the mechanics which inexorably leads to the loss of legs and how it works in general terms. Otherwise it's just a Just So story and not a hypothesis at all.
Observed evidence in the real world around us is that order just does not come about by leaving things to themselves unmanaged.
Your intuitions regarding order and disorder in this universe are almost certainly at odds with the experts that study them. Just like the passer-bys opinions on how a police officer should deal with a suspect, just like the liberal that tells the soldier how to keep the peace, the taxi driver who thinks he knows how to organise a 100million people in a correct way, the mathematician who criticizes epistemology...
Maybe you are a genius, and maybe you are ahead of your time. But if that were true, you should be able to communicate something a little more meaty than you have so far done, yes?