The difference between the first two is that Coincidental Explosion (CE) proponents are the guys with all the money, the support and the time to elaborate so extensively on their studies of how exactly coincidence exploded into such a brilliant clock-work, that the few who dare to defy them and insist that behind the clock-work of the universe has to be a Maker just the same way as it was with any Rolex, look rather ridiculous in comparison, and a substantial amount of the third group join in the laughter of the CE proponents, even if they may not have the faintest clue what they're laughing about.
They see the other, big, rich and mean guys laugh, and so they laugh along. Call it peer pressure, monkey-see-monkey-do, copy-cat-ism, you get the point.
Far from being the lunatics, religious fanatics and scum of the earth the CE media make their counterparts out to be, some of the Clock-Worker's defenders actually do have a brain, well-functioning ones at that, and are even - occasionally - blessed with time to investigate the possible veracity of the blueprint of our origins the Clock-Maker left us.
From the CE side of the fence, the claim that the first chapter of the Bible may have anything to say about where the universe came from sounds totally ridiculous. After all: you see the universe expanding, press the "reverse" button and you get the picture of the Big Bang. Only idiots would deny that.
Possibly. At first glance, perhaps.
But then all the decades and gazillions of dollars poured into a substantial proof for "how it happened" only got the CE camp close to the ever-elusive break-through, always near the edge, but never quite there.
If only a fraction of the funds and efforts would have gone into investigating whether possibly something might be true about the creation account in Genesis, I personally believe, we'd all know a lot more by now.
One of the brave few who has wracked his brain in such a comparatively lone attempt, is D.Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., author of the 1994 book "Starlight and Time - Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe" which to my shame I must admit I only took off my shelf now, after 2 years or so of buying it.
While Humphreys may not have it all figured out to a tee (and I'm not familiar with any updates on his theories), he makes at least as much sense to me as the much appraised Stephen Hawking and his distinguished colleagues from the "Anything-but-the-Clock-Maker-Tale" camp. I may be Bible-biased, but in the same manner, they are definitely coincidence-biased, and since coincidence has proven to be a rather poor clock-maker in real life, I stick to my conviction that you must be a fool if you persistently refuse to see that fact.
What's really nice about Humphreys is that he has the guts to take the Bible literally literal. Even more so than the average creationist, which is already the standard of downright lunacy as far the hounds of the CE Gestapo are concerned. In other words, more literal than I did. While most creationists traditionally contend that the "expansion" Genesis describes as the "firmament" or "heaven" that separated the waters on earth from waters above it that were supposed to have soaked the earth during Noah's flood, the literal description of that expansion would actually make it the stellar universe.
I had heard that claim once during the 80s and quickly dismissed it, but Humphreys' argumentation gives me new reasons to have the guts to take the Bible as literally as he does.
It turns out that the supposed "knowledge" the CE crew came up with and bombards us with daily has had a stronger impact on all of us than we sometimes realize, even if we know that all that really upholds it is the money poured into it, and even if some of them are honest enough to declare that they are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.
Some people are just fine without ever finding out how our planet and its neighborhood came into being. I personally am more inclined to be the more curious type, and I'd like to be able to tell people that what my camp has to say on the issue is potentially just as valid as the mainstream, anti-God efforts.
So, I'm profoundly grateful to Russell Humphreys for his work, even if it may not be quite the perfect explanation of everything yet, but merely a theory, but we can't even say more than that about some of Einstein's work, either.
If one really is bold enough to accept the Bible for what it is and says, it drives home the point that God must be even more awesomely greater than we previously tried to fathom, and also, that size and distance are perfectly irrelevant to Him.
If everything in our physical home world is an illustration of a greater truth concerning the world we don't know (which I strongly believe), then take the atom for example:
If the atom's core were the size of a marble, then the radius in which the electrons spin around it would be two miles.
According to Humphreys, the vast universe we perceive through our increasingly powerful telescopes is only an expansion within a larger heaven, which the Bible calls "Heaven of heavens," and even that's not yet the end of it, since it also talks about a third heaven.
So, as vast as the universe may be, and as tiny as we may be in comparison to the rest of it, it's not our size that matters to God, evidently. He seems to be at least just as concerned about us as some of those scientists are about subatomic particles.
Or, as I have put it in the much simpler terms of one of my songs: "He's greater than everything, but small enough to fit inside your heart..."
It's probably impossible to figure that out with our current brain capacity, but things still make more sense accepting it.