In general I like your post but there are some problems with it.
- You assume that creationism inevitably leads to the Biblical creationism. This narrows the dispute to Christianity.
- The age of the universe (proven or not) does not require creationism to be wrong. The Bible is only one of the creationist allegories.
- There are lines of thoughts based on scientific methods leading to creationism as the only plausible explanation of the Beginning of the Universe.
- You put creationism and science opposite each other and judge both on the basis that if one is right then the other must be wrong.
- You assume that for God to exist he must be good.
- By saying “I believe science can demonstrate that the chances of an accidental Universe are infinitely small” you demonstrate just another belief, not a scientific fact. After all science has not demonstrated the “infinite smallness” yet. Therefore, you follow one belief, but reject the other. Not to mention that infinitely small is not the same as zero.
- The science of Christmas pudding (or any pudding for that matter) is actually pretty damn valid science; lots of chemistry going on there
What you neglect to mention, or stress rather, is that the age of the physical Universe is very significant in the pro-creationist argument. It is also important to mention that science deals with the physical Universe, not with the Supernatural, i.e. that which exists (or may exist) outside the realm of the physical.
Since the physical Universe has a determined age it follows that it must have a beginning. It is not just a logical trick. This is actually supported by the laws of thermodynamics and can be calculated on most handheld calculators. Specifically by the 3rd Law, known also as law Entropy suggests that such calculation is possible. Based on that law, we must reject the notion that the physical Universe always existed, because if the universe always existed it would necessarily have to be in the state of entropy right now. It obviously isn't, therefore it had a beginning in time, calculated to be somewhere between 13 and 15 B years, give or take a billion, plus minus a Planck constant or two.
Now, if the Universe did have a beginning, then there was a time when it didn’t exist. What made it come to being? Whatever it was it couldn’t have been of physical nature since we already established that the physical didn’t even exist. Therefore the beginning of the Universe is Supernatural, i.e. not physical, as physics does not allow nothing to turn into something. Some experiments with Quarks offered hope to materialists. Initially they concluded that quarks can pop-up out of nothing. Well, experiments showed they can't.
That doesn’t necessarily mean the Biblical God, or the Hindu Gods, or other creatures equated with the divine are responsible for the existence of the Universe . But it does mean that physical science, by its very currently accepted definition, method and subject of research may never be able offer the answer as to who/what made everything “be”.
There is also another problem with science - creationism plagued by it too. They both use a language created by those who chose to use it. It’s a language that is not necessarily objective. For instance in science, I find it difficult to reconcile the notion of 0 (zero) with a lack of its representation in the Universe. There is no known equivalent of 0 in the physical universe, and yet 0 is one of the tools used to describe it. How's that for a nice taint of dogma in science
OK, I hope I didn't make it harder than it reaaly apears to me