On another clip, BrazilNut commented:

Checked out the FAQ, and came up with this gem right away:

The fact of the matter is that we do not really understand how the universe came about.

If they don't know, then why are they so opposed to people theorizing (we are not even talking about theologians here) about ID and presenting those theories as viable options in schools? What are they afraid of?

Literally speaking, we will likely never have evidence for the initial (a-causal) quantum fluctuation that set the Big Bang in motion. The...

On another clip, BrazilNut commented:

Checked out the FAQ, and came up with this gem right away:

The fact of the matter is that we do not really understand how the universe came about.

If they don't know, then why are they so opposed to people theorizing (we are not even talking about theologians here) about ID and presenting those theories as viable options in schools? What are they afraid of?

Literally speaking, we will likely never have evidence for the initial (a-causal) quantum fluctuation that set the Big Bang in motion. The very next two paragraphs of the answer you quote go on to convey some of the difficulties of explaining the Big Bang to non-mathematicians:

The issues of where the Big Bang occurred and how it happened seems to be locked up in these unfamiliar and very subtle features of the physical world. It is impossible for a non-mathematician, using the best crafted essays, to completely understand what it has taken decades of mathematical/logical abstraction and intense experimental analysis to create.

The best, non-mathematical description that any cosmologist can create for describing the Big Bang is that it occurred in every cubic centimeter of space in the universe with no unique starting point. In fact, it was an event which our mathematics indicate, actually brought space and time into existence. It did not occur IN space at a particular location, because it created space ( and time itself) as it went along. There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of our time and space.

[...continued...]

But then the rest of the FAQ goes on to attempt to do just that...describe the beginnings of the universe in layman's terms...and admirably so! Obviously, the author (along with all physicists) isn't suggesting that the Big Bang is not knowable or else the FAQ wouldn't exist...and indeed most of modern quantum physics itself would grind to a halt. Instead, science is progressing and knowledge of the universe is increasing at an accelerated pace.

BN, don't tell me that you're going to let one rhetorical statement stop you from learning about a major field of scientific study. Are you serious about learning the physics of the Big Bang or are you looking for a technicality ...

[...continued...]

But then the rest of the FAQ goes on to attempt to do just that...describe the beginnings of the universe in layman's terms...and admirably so! Obviously, the author (along with all physicists) isn't suggesting that the Big Bang is not knowable or else the FAQ wouldn't exist...and indeed most of modern quantum physics itself would grind to a halt. Instead, science is progressing and knowledge of the universe is increasing at an accelerated pace.

BN, don't tell me that you're going to let one rhetorical statement stop you from learning about a major field of scientific study. Are you serious about learning the physics of the Big Bang or are you looking for a technicality excuse not to begin?

It's never too late to join the fun of discovery...

It's never too late to join the fun of discovery...

What is this...Barney?

Seriously, however, we are approaching things from two different points of view, that will never intersect. You look at the world around you and see chaos and randomness, and figure this must have happened by chance--hence you look for the natural causes of things. (I understand this is a gross oversimplification, I am painting with a large brush here).

I look at the world around me, and see the order and precision of creation, and cannot conceive of how it could be the result of randomness and chance.

I was actually quite surprised to find the admission there, and I did not omit the rest of ...

It's never too late to join the fun of discovery...

What is this...Barney?

Seriously, however, we are approaching things from two different points of view, that will never intersect. You look at the world around you and see chaos and randomness, and figure this must have happened by chance--hence you look for the natural causes of things. (I understand this is a gross oversimplification, I am painting with a large brush here).

I look at the world around me, and see the order and precision of creation, and cannot conceive of how it could be the result of randomness and chance.

I was actually quite surprised to find the admission there, and I did not omit the rest of the paragraph to "hide" anything. I was very interested in the admission.

I am not a quantum physicist...I freely admit that I would be out of my depth in a hurry on any discussion of the topic. Nothing I have ever read, however, has ever been able to answer the question of original cause.

Nothing, that is, except for "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..."

The quote you pulled was about the "ultimate origins" of the universe, which is likely beyond the abilities of science to answer because it is more of a philosophical question (like "Why is there anything rather than nothing?") than a scientific one. The FAQ mentions this up front because so many people unfamiliar with science and cosmology bring it up as an excuse to avoid learning either. Besides, as the FAQ at T.O makes very clear from the start, Big Bang Theory (BBT) has nothing to do with the actual origin of our universe, only how it developed afterwards:

"Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development...

The quote you pulled was about the "ultimate origins" of the universe, which is likely beyond the abilities of science to answer because it is more of a philosophical question (like "Why is there anything rather than nothing?") than a scientific one. The FAQ mentions this up front because so many people unfamiliar with science and cosmology bring it up as an excuse to avoid learning either. Besides, as the FAQ at T.O makes very clear from the start, Big Bang Theory (BBT) has nothing to do with the actual origin of our universe, only how it developed afterwards:

"Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time.

(BTW, the same paragraph goes on to clarify:

This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution."

For the record, neither BBT nor biological evolution have anything to say about the ultimate origins of the universe or the life contained within it.)

Finally:

I look at the world around me, and see the order and precision of creation, and cannot conceive of how it could be the result of randomness and chance.

Actually, this is precisely my reaction to the world as well and it's that sense of awe that drives scientists to discover how that order and precision in nature arose in the first place. If you're implying that either BBT or evolution are theories of randomness or chaos, you have them completely backwards. All the more reason to encourage you (and others) to investigate actual science, not its popular misrepresentations.

What is this...Barney?

Don't make me bust out the "I Love You" song.