To Saethydd
Valid question, the problem is you think you already have the answer. My answer is that we don't know... yet, but we have developed a number of plausible theories almost none of which would necessarily contradict each other. Here is a link if you actually care to learn about the leading theories.
You see, a scientist can't just invoke God because something seems to have no other explanation. If they did that, then we would still be woefully ignorant about... everything in the natural world. So many things that have been attributed to being directly controlled by God (Or depending on the time and culture gods, demons, ghosts, tree spirits etc.) have been shown to have natural explanations. That will very probably be the case with this issue as well.
Now if you want to keep shoving God back into the gaps of scientific knowledge feel free to do so, but you should know that in that case, your God is nothing more than an ever receding front being pushed backward farther and farther every year, and it's gonna take a lot more than a vague appeal to incredulity to stop that.
Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.
I am using the same methodological principle that is being used by the Evolutionist. Why am I being denied the same privilege?
In “Reconstructing the Past” – Elliot Sober stated that if historical scientist can discover an effect for which there is only one know cause, when the effect is discovered the action of the cause can be inferred great confidence. Sober’s suggests that if scientists can discover an effect for which there is only one plausible cause, they can infer the presence or action of that cause in the past with great confidence.
X is necessary to the occurrence of Y = Y exist + Therefore, X existed.
This argument is logically and valid. A past cause or event can be established from an affect alone.
Scribes are the only known cause of linguistic inscriptions; therefore any tablets containing ancient script can infer scribal activity. Wide spread of volcanic ash will infer a past eruption. Where a particular past cause is known to be necessary to produce a subsequent effect, the occurrence of ‘the effect is taken as sufficient to establish the occurrence of the cause.” The only known cause of information is intelligence.