Here's why Creatards might be right

[Thumpalumpacus]

See the Third Law here.

I totally understand what you're trying to tell me. But science cannot explain why's of the natural world.

Are you familiar with programming?
If you look at this piece of code you will better understand what I'm trying to say:

void main()
{
int x=5,y;
printf("Enter a number: ");
scanf("%d",&y);
printf("The number is %d.",y+x);
}

This function is like our natural world. After a few try's we'd be able to figure out that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. This is what science does. Science make observations and derive conclusions. What science cannot do is why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give as an input. The only answer is - it's how it's always have been.
Our world is like that function. We have no clue why the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give. The only thing we know is that the number displayed after the text "The number is " is 5 more than the number we give through observation.

You get me? I have the idea in my head but I'm having trouble communicating it in a way people would normally do. :/

I'm not conversant with programming at all, so your example doesn't parse for me.

I will refer you to my earlier point that science doesn't address purpose. You may as well hammer a nail with a fish taco -- you're using the wrong tool for the job, and then complaining that the tool ain't getting the job done.