I think it's not the same. Religions are usually not mainly about more powerful beings creating other beings. There's always a whole set of prescriptive rules, "this is how you're supposed to live your life" that doesn't apply here.

This is not a nitpick, it's actually the main thing about religion. Giving meaning and purpose to life. The hypothesis of some beings creating the rest of life in the universe doesn't provide this.

I’m specifically not invoking faith. This doesn’t support Abrahamic religions more than any other. The line of reasoning here applies just as much to Hinduism, simulation theory, many creation stories, zoo theory, etc.

The idea that the universe was created by a higher being applies to every religion, but does not invoke faith? If you were to believe that theory at all it would require faith. How else could you believe it? No matter what you call it, there is a leap of faith.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, here's the definition of faith from Merriam Webster that I think applies:

  a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
   (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
  b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
   (2): complete trust

The first thing is you don't have to "believe" in the idea I outlined to use it. It's just a condition under which a probabilistic explanation doesn't account for the lack of observed intelligent life. And, it hasn't been disproven. So that's a way any probabilistic model is incomplete.

Second, we could come to seriously believe in this theory through consensus direct interactions with these higher powers. That wouldn't require a leap of faith at all. If robots showed up and were like "we were sent by your creators, they say you're doing great" and gave us a second moon as a present, that would be very strong proof of more powerful beings.

Yes, if we had direct contact with the higher being that created our universe, or any proof of their existence, humans would no longer require faith regarding the existence of God...

How would you use this theory if you didn't believe it held any truth? You certainly can't draw any corollaries from it. If it is actually a relevant condition worth considering, then you must believe it to be tenable to some degree.

There's a condition where when I kick a ball, just before I touch it, the ball actually invisibly flies to the moon and back and then moves forward. It would be a condition under which Newton's laws fail... but I would have to actually believe in that condition to some degree to use it. It is also similarly unfalsifiable. With current observations it is scientifically untenable, and believing in that condition would require faith.

Any model can be proven incomplete if you conjure up unfalsifiable conditions that exist outside its domain and believe in them.

> b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

For you to use the theory of creation in any meaningful way you must believe it is tenable. For you to believe it is tenable, without being faithful, there must be proof. Proof of this existence comes in many forms, where is your proof? Morality? Reason? Those aren't entirely scientific proofs...

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to censure or disprove creationism and the metaphysical systems built upon it, they are very important and super interesting... but I don't think any of them are without a bit of faith, and they are certainly beyond science's capabilities. This is why I was saying it was interesting that science could invoke faith in some way.