And yet, you started your reply with this:
An ostensible non-encounter proof that a creator exists.
So, which is it?
Great question...In terms of the existence of a creator, the latter. Intelligent design is so overwhelmingly apparent, Darwin's antiquated fantasies are unscientific nonsense and obsolete. In terms of a personal God, personally and deliberately and deeply invested in your welfare, the former.
You might think I'm trying to be glib, but there really is a process to knowing the truth, as with any investigation. Paul wrote of this clearly in Romans 1, the forbidden passage in Canada, where if I read it on the radio, the show would be shut down:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. [Think photons communicating in real time across the universe, and the hackable electronic processes of the brain.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [We go for whatever floats the boat...and we think we're more sophisticated because we worship our gadgets and not statues.
24Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity for the dishonoring of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise!f Amen. [Think, worship as ascribing highest value to. What's first in your life?
26For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents. 31They are senseless, faithless, heartless, merciless. [If you take verses 26 to the end as equally dangerous, you will see that envy, murder, strife and malice are equal threats with everything else. Paul makes that clear in the next chapter. This is not "homophobia". It's a realistic analysis of the symptoms brought on by a disease called arrogance.
Read my question again:
If somebody had used science to prove a god, they would have won a Nobel Prize, wouldn't they?
"A" god; not "your" god.
If somebody had used science to prove that the universe is a creation - irrespective of who created it - why haven't they won a Nobel Prize?
This is a really good question. Who's ready to admit the obvious? You're not. Paul says up above that the truth is being deliberately suppressed by the wickedness of the censors. But the impossibility of any proof for of Darwinism stands as an indictment to the pseudo-science that thinks anything goes, as long as they control the dialog.