Creationism and Evolution are BOTH right.

No. It doesn't disprove that a higher power exists at all. But with no evidence, there is no reason to believe in it. I will agree that both God and a pocket of energy are both unlikely to have just "popped" into existence. But one is far more complex than the other, and something that is more complex is LESS likely to have spontaneously come into existence. But see, the thing is, I don't believe in a packet of energy that just randomly came into existence. I have no proof that there ever was a packet of energy like that. And because of that, I will freely say: I don't know how the world got here. I really don't. But I am not going to start believing in something because I don't know, I will leave the question open ended until I find evidence pointing one way or another. Because there is no evidence, there is no belief. This comes into play in every aspect of our lives, both scientific and social. For instance, making assumptions about people or their motives without evidence, or following a certain health routine without evidence. For example, imagine this scenario: I am going to tell you that a person exists. I won't give you very many details about this person whatsoever (because I am approaching this from a non-religious standpoint, certain religions that provide many details about God are provably wrong), but I expect you to believe that this person invented every piece of technology ever, and every single human advancement was actually all coming from this one person. This person is not omnipotent, but he/she is immortal and can put thoughts into people's minds, which explains the various people that get the credit. Given this imaginary scenario, would you believe that this person existed? You do know that people exist, and you do know they have made scientific advancement. You do know that certain people get credit for this. This is a possible explanation for that advancement. There is no evidence, and it logically doesn't doesn't make sense, but you cannot disprove it. Are you going to believe that this person exists because you can't disprove it? Moving on to what you said about having to suspend logic, the centipede dilemma has nothing to do with that. The centipede dilemma involves thinking about an unconscious activity being interrupted if you think about it too hard. Is thinking an unconscious activity? No. Is believing an unconscious activity? Also no. An unconscious activity is something you do without realizing it, either instinctively or by habit. Thinking about that activity makes it difficult. That is what the centipede dilemma is. If we stop consciously thinking, then we will be either mental vegetables, capable of only nervous ticks and breathing, or perhaps closer to lower animals, acting only on instinct. If logic and higher powers/God cannot be reconciled, then your 'theory' helps no one but those who already believe in a higher power. Those that already believe in God are still going to believe in a higher power, and those that don't are still not going to believe in it. And they are still going to argue about it. So really, this idea that "God created the universe and then science took over" changes nothing. Sources: http://www.poemhunter.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...