So, you start with the Creator premise: It is not necessary to know the character of the Creator of the Created entity. This is true. However, we need to have evidence that Michealangelo exists/existed in order to credit him with being the Creator of the Created object. And that is where the comparison to Creationism gets shaky since we have no actual evidence of the existence of the Creator.
Atheists and their philosophy say there is no evidence of a Creator. It is apparent that you think atheistic assumptions are objective truth. Since you are an atheist this is expected. Science assumes the existence of a Creator/Designer based on the undisputed appearance of design and organized complexity that we see in biological reality.
My point is that your starting assumption places everyone who acknowledges reality the way it is on the defensive. The same assumption cannot be overcome by any evidence and predetermines all of your interpretations and conclusions.
In short my point is that Creationism is fine as a religious or philosophical concept but it fails as science.
Very predictable and ordinary atheist philosophy.
Ray
Romans 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. All Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.