Does Science Point To A Creator? Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer Debate

Excellent exchange.
Introduced, moderated, and concluded by Lee Strobel.

Regarding the "who created the creator" dilemma, I would like to point out that a proposed "universal designer," a personal Prime Reality, must operate on a level where our rules may not apply. Therefore, that dilemma is premature. One commentator said regarding this:

Here [the atheist] ignores the possibility that God is a very different sort of being than brains and computers. His argument for God’s complexity either assumes that God is material or, at least, that God is complex in the same general way that material things are (having many parts related in complicated ways to one another).
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?ref=opinion

But, that is an unsafe assumption, and may just be a distraction from the "heavy commitment" of believing in a universal designer.

Also mentioned, not by name, is the 'god of the gaps' issue. That is, attributing a divine cause to something before science can give a perfectly rational natural explanation for it. Thus, 'god' rules over our gaps in knowledge. This is applicable for many things. For instance, we do not attribute divine causality to lightning or earthquakes. But its applicability has limits, specifically, on the cause of information. Information is specified complexity. Mount Rushmore contains specified complexity of recognizable men's faces. Biological information is no different. This is an axiom that will survive the heated and fiery controversy over life's origins.