Part 2 of My Proof God does not Exist!

Nature vs. Intelligence – What's the confusion?
hear on youTube

Many atheist like to point out and argue the apparent un-intelligence of our universe, and indeed that is incredibly easy given the diversity and opportunistic nature of evolution.  The problem with this approach is that it misses the big point.  Embedded in the Creationist argument is the assumption that nature and god could be confused; that evolution and the acts of the creator some how look the same. That the forms they produce and the apparent methods they used would appear so close to each other that millions of scientist over the past 150 years of looking into where we come from would have missed those nuances in the physical record that would have proved there was a creator. Logically this makes no sense since there is nothing connecting the two realities except of course the need by the believer to fit their intelligent designer in to the constraints of the real world.



The reality is, the forms intelligence and nature produce and especially the methods they use would have almost nothing in common and it should be nearly impossible to justify one from the evidence of the other. Some of the key traits that come with intelligence is that it's actions and therefore it's creation will have a well defined purpose, which will incorporate optimization, and to what ever extent inherent in the intelligence, it will not be constrained by the limits of the physical/natural world.  Looking around us we generally know what is natural and what is made by the only known intelligence in the universe, us.  More over the more technologically advance we become the easier it is to tell us apart.  I am always amazed by how much we can tease out about the intelligence of our ancestors as far as how they made their tools and habitats.  Simple patterns that are not probable in nature cue us to the presents of intelligence.  When our earliest ancestors made the first stone tools they left not only the tools but also a pattern of stone flakes that let us know it was not a natural occurrence.  As our technology has increased the evidence of our presence has grown and become more obvious. Roads, farms, cities, factories, parks, gardens, water works, sewage system, power infrastructure, jet contrails, dams, mines, oil wells, etc.: they all create patterns against the landscape that is easily identifiable as from an intelligence.  Even on the very small, our intelligence leave very identifiable patterns at a molecular level in our materials and alloys, our electronic circuitry, our industrial and commercial chemicals, the purity and make up of the water we drink,and even the genetic make up of the life around us. These patterns we make, especially when compared to the natural world, speak of forms specific constructed and deposited to do our purpose, and show none of the evolutionary forces that act on the natural world.  It would be strange indeed to think that at some point along our evolution and technological progress, all traces of our intelligence and purpose will merge back into the chaos that is nature.

Even when our purpose is to make something look like nature we only maintain it at a very superficial level which only goes as deep as it needs to fool those intended. More importantly even when intelligence tries to make something appear natural, the components will still have a function or purpose and many times will have components that are there specifically to counter the natural processes that cause things to change in the wild.  Moreover if the creator had purpose like wanting us to believe in him or just know he exists, we would see it everywhere and it would not be hidden. Should see signs that have optimization beyond what would show an evolutionary benefit. You should see optimization for the creators benefit. Intelligence would not be limited to lineage like nature.  You should find features that transcend a single lineage and bridge unrelated species. Intelligence would not find multiple ways to solve the same problem, it doesn't need to. Intelligence tends to find the best way and use it, over and over. You would not expect there to be multiple types of eyes doing the same function meeting the same need, but genetically unique. If there was no macro evolution then you should see the hand of the intelligent creator, plain as day in every creature we genetically map.  If there was a creator, science would be categorizing all life, not by the common traits handed down generation to generation but by the assortment of genetic code and common components that form a unique combination of each animal.

If there was a creator you should not see any genetic lineages in that each genome would be its own standard type and traceable through other species regardless of any other traits are shared. A creator would also want to minimize the impact of evolution.  If he created something perfect, the last thing he would want is to have it morphing all over adapting to new situations. So you would not see mutations or even the viral markers we use for dating. You would expect, events and structures that lead to genetic variability would be minimized. To this end you would think an intelligent creator would not need 2 sexes.   Although 2 sexes is absolutely essential to the evolutionary process, they serve no purpose if we were created.  Why would god need such variation, If humans where self impregnating, they  wouldn't need orgasm and mating rituals and you wold eliminate porn and rape and all sex related sin. Admittedly the notion of sexual reproduction is so ingrained in us that no religion will even begin to question why 2 sexes but if you were designing us from scratch wouldn't one be easier or for Christians wouldn't 3 be more relevant.

Beyond our evolution, you should also see the signs of intelligence in the formation of the universe and throughout all of physics. The evidence of Gods purpose should be everywhere. If he created the universe for our benefit you would not expect a big bang or even a full fledge universe a we have. Actually what you would expect is pretty much what, the ancients thought it was with crystal spheres and all that, a small cozy universe that more resembled a zoo than the universe we see.

Now I know many of you are saying that fact that we can understand the universe at all is evidence of gods intelligence. But that statement exemplifies a lack of understanding of what science is and how our own problem solving abilities work.  Humans find a way to understand what ever is there, that's all science is. If god and related supernatural phenomenon existed then you would expect science studying the peculiar way that physic interacts with life and more specifically the human brain to support formation of a soul or spirit. Or your mental health would be measured thru an MRI like device to determine how your mind interactions with your soul, or you would be able to validate that someone actually talked with god or ghosts or whatever, or the workings of miracles and all supernatural phenomenon would be just another part of physics. If god existed and interacted the way theist claim you would expect to see it in not some subtle way but in a grand way.

In my video, My Proof God does not Exist! Part 1, I talk more about what you would expect as far as physical evidence of god if he existed.