There were probably a sequence of events that led up to the big bang, and the current conception of the big bang model assumes the pre-existence of energy, time, and space. But even the Big Bang model does not comment about their origin or the cause of the dense and high temperature initial state of the universe because there is no current logic that will sufficiently support it.
However, to transfer the entire academic discourse - the philosophical, scientific, and metaphysical inquiry - regarding the origins of the universe to the existence of a supernatural creator with the intent to create is pure folly if without the backing of some semblance of reason. If our argument is that there must have been a creator because we are surrounded by creation that originated from a time before the big bang... then that is simply faith... that is not proof.
We know how trees grow. We know how living things reproduce. We know the cycle of the seasons. We know so many things about the world and the universe grounded on hard science and irrefutable data. And in all of these scientific discoveries, there is no proof of a god or supernatural creator. But just because we have not yet uncovered the ultimate origin of the universe, do we have a license to claim that as proof of a god? No, I think not.
The laws of nature and the universe are facts - yes.
The presence of information in DNA exists - yes.
These facts in nature can only come from a powerful intelligent mind beyond space and time - no.
The first two have proof to back them up. That last part is belief/faith. That last part tries to answer the question: How is it that the laws of nature and the universe behave according to principles that can be described by logical formulas? It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.
In order to find evidence for this concept, we need to get insights or knowledge from various field of study such as, science, physics, philosophy and logic. If the discussion and search for evidence is confined only to natural sciences, then we are limiting ourselves to the search for ultimate truth. Because we know that natural science deals with the physical world. However, what we are trying to prove or disprove is NOT physical, not an object or phenomenon in the world. Furthermore, science is an empirical and inductive discipline (I deal w/ this daily in my practice of medicine). As such science or natural science, may not have considered all possible data that would be relevant in say the explanation of the birth of the universe. Science is however open to new discoveries which could change its conclusion if need be.
Much ado about…Nothing.
There is an expression: “From nothing, only nothing comes”…this expression becomes even more meaningful when we talk about the beginning of the universe. In the BBT the point at which the universe begun to exist is also the point where time begun to exist. In physics, nothing physical can exist prior to the beginning point simply because there is no “time prior to that point”. Then this follows, that the universe did not exist prior to the beginning point. Because there was nothing there in the first place. When we say “nothing” it means nothing….no dimension, no properties, no energy etc. etc. Therefore, if nothing can’t do anything, then it cannot create something for that matter. Thus, we could say that the universe cannot create itself because when it was nothing….it can only do NOTHING! Finally, if the universe cannot create itself, then “something else” had to make the universe into something. This “something else” would have to be transcendent and beyond space-time. This force is generally termed “a Creator”.
Is there really an absolute beginning of space-time in whatever model our universe is situated? The so called BVG Theorem say so…
This theorem postulated by Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth (hence the name) to formulate a demonstration of a beginning of expanding universes….is a kind of Space-Time Geometry Proof.
"We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible.”
This was also apparently applied to string multiverses and oscillating universe models…in all cases the conclusion was there is an absolute beginning in all models.
This evidence from physics due to “space-time geometry proofs” indicates the probability of a beginning of our universe. In as much as a beginning indicates a point at which our universe came into existence, and prior to that point that the universe was nothing, then it is probable that the universe and any hypothetical multiverse in which our universe might be situated was created by a transcendent power outside of physical space and time.
That’s for the Universe, now for the DNA.
DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program.
In the same way, DNA is made up of four chemicals, abbreviated as letters A, T, G, and C. Much like the ones and zeros, these letters are arranged in the human cell like this: CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT and so on. The order in which they are arranged instructs the cell's actions.
What bogles the mind is that within the tiny space in every cell in your body, this code is three billion letters long!!! Repeat 3 Billion Letters Long!!!
To grasp the amount of DNA information in one cell, "a live reading of that code at a rate of three letters per second would take thirty-one years, even if reading continued day and night."
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6
Dr. Antony Flew (an atheist) questioned, it is legitimate to ask oneself regarding this three billion letter code instructing the cell...who wrote this script? Who placed this working code, inside the cell?
Are these 3 scientists part of those “people” you characterized below:
“It is only because we have no answers for it in solid, experimental/observation-based science that people tend to default to faith-based answers, but those faith-based answers do not have proof to back them up.”
You are limiting the search to only what you call “solid, experiment/observation-based science” …and that’s where the problem lies. Because you need other fields of study to interpret and give to meaning to those experiments/observations…