UnintelligentEvolution.com
Darwin said: "...we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator," (Origin of Species, p488)
Can Un-intelligent Origins Be Challenged in <500 Words?
Let's try the scientific method...
Observation (Atheist/Agnostic): Everything seems to have emerged from random, un-intelligent natural processes.
Question: Where does intelligence come from?
Hypothesis/Prediction (Atheist/Agnostic): If un-intelligence made everything, then un-intelligence makes intelligence and un-intelligence made my intelligence.
Experiment: Observe un-intelligent things to determine if it is testable that new intelligence emerges from un-intelligence. Examples: one could observe random chemical or atomic processes, a stream of water, or things like a paper cup or a piece of wood, etc., to see if some new intelligence emerges.
Analysis: 1) The hypothesis is about the intelligence/un-intelligence of the origin of the universe. Thus, in order to prevent a logical fallacy, no existing un-intelligent natural process that emerged after the origin and apparently produces something intelligent can be used to claim that our intelligence emerged from an un-intelligent origin. That could be like claiming evidence of an un-intelligent origin of humans because humans emerge from un-intelligent development processes in the womb, while ignoring the earlier stages of reproduction that included intelligent parents. 2) Any test must be repeatable and produce actual results. Claiming that more time is needed or millions of years are needed to produce a test is not science. 3) If no un-intelligent thing can actually produce new intelligence, then the hypothesis fails and is just imaginary.
Conclusion: Anyone would agree that human intellectual processes are a product of our origin, be it an intelligent or un-intelligent origin. However, most scientists already concur that all actual tests fail to observe any new intelligence spontaneously emerging from any un-intelligent thing or process. Thus the fundamental atheist/agnostic hypothesis apparently fails. It fails to make useful predictions, fails all tests, lacks common sense, is contradicted by testable evidence, as we will see next, and is unsupported by scientific principle, or even Darwin's Origin of Species...
Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" - Origin of Species, p. 188
Can an Intelligent Origin Be Proved?
"...we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would...not lead us to the wrong conclusions."
- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
Revised Observation: Everything emerged from something that was not entirely un-intelligent.
Same Question: Where does intelligence come from?
New Hypothesis/Prediction: Since we have already falsified that un-intelligence makes intelligence, it is reasonable that an intelligent designer makes intelligence.
Logical Assumption: Mankind's intelligence, creativity, and design abilities, characteristics and behavior, etc., are a product of our origin and can be tested just like anything else to determine the intelligent origin of the universe and it's processes and laws.
Experiment: Observe mankind's intelligence and design characteristics and behavior to test and determine the intelligent origin of the universe. Testable observations: 1) Designers designed artificial intelligence. 2) Designers design processes, like the scientific process, and the printing process, etc. 3) A designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their completed design. 4) A designer is present during the design process. 5) A designer cares about their design and watches over it and may also have other agents caring for and watching over their design. 6) A designer makes themselves available at some point to demonstrate their design or answer questions about it. 7) A designer documents their design and leaves tell-tale signs like assembly instructions and manufacturing processes. 8) A designer is born of two parents.
Analysis: 1) Since our origin, the Big Bang or whatever, can never be directly tested, we depend on observing and testing indirect evidence. 2) In order to prevent an equivocation fallacy, there needs to be a common definition: All processes, man-made or natural, such as evolution, or the thinking process/intelligence, or the scientific process, have a common meaning: Processes are a sequence of actions, changes, or functions, etc., towards an end. 3) If no intelligent human designer can actually produce new intelligence, then the hypothesis fails or is just imaginary.
Conclusion 1: Testable evidence supports the intelligent Designer hypothesis and apparently contradicts the fundamental atheist/agnostic hypothesis... Intelligent designers made artificial intelligence.
Conclusion 2: Testable evidence seems to show that one can not reasonably use an undetected/invisible Designer to disprove or exclude a Designer of the universe because a designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their design. Thus, we can predict that a Designer of the universe would not be intrinsically detected when observing nature.
Testable Evidence Supports a Cosmic Intelligent Designer
Testable Hypothesis 1: One can not reasonably use an undetected/invisible Designer to disprove or exclude a Designer of the universe. A designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their design.
Testable Hypothesis 2: Intelligent designers make intelligence.
Testable Hypothesis 3: A process is made by a designer (resonable examples: process of evolution, reproduction, chemical processes, atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc.)
Testable Hypothesis 4: A designer leaves tell-tale signs like assembly instructions and manufacturing processes (reasonable examples: process of evolution, DNA, atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc.)
Conclusion: There seems to be un-contradicted, testable evidence, that is useful for making predictions, that intelligence and other processes are made by an intelligent Designer. In diverse areas of life, one can confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent, or to increase intelligence or knowledge. And it apparently takes an intelligent designer to make processes. Thus, it is rational to think that there is an intelligent Designer of the universe (and all its natural processes, etc.).
Let's see what the Bible had to say 2000 years ago about observing, testing, and understanding reality: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things, 1 Peter 3:15 give a reason, Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - NIV. So, let's use real science, like the Bible says, based on observing, testing, reasoning, and understanding "what has been made", not basing ones point of view on imagination or blind faith or assumptions.
What is an Intelligent Designer of the Universe Like?
"...all physical theories...break down at the beginning of the universe."
- Stephen Hawking.
su-per-nat-u-ral: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; - Dictionary.com
Logical Assumption: Mathematical infinity, singularities, the "Big Bang", extra dimensions, and parallel universes are not able to be directly tested and are beyond the laws of nature, yet scientists believe in these things, showing that super-natural qualities, like a God's infinite nature, can exist. This is not proof. It's simply scientifically enabling the possibility of a super-natural God.
Logical Assumption: Since by definition a law or rule implies a law enforcer, it is logical to think that the laws of nature have a cosmic law enforcer.
Testable Hypothesis 5: A designer is present during the design process.
Testable Hypothesis 6: A designer cares about their design and jealously watches over and protects it and may also have other agents caring for and watching over their design.
Testable Hypothesis 7: A designer makes themselves available at some point to demonstrate their design or answer questions about it.
Testable Hypothesis 8: A designer is born of two parents.
Conclusion: It seems to be rational that a Designer of the universe who could design atomic processes, etc., would be super-natural and able to operate outside of our laws of nature (see more below). Since human designers make themselves available, it would also make sense that a Cosmic designer would make themselves available to mankind. There is written evidence of people observing such a designer. In the Bible, the Designer of the universe was present during the design (Genesis 1), was called a jealous God who jealously cares about his design and watches over it, and also has agents caring for and watching over the design (i.e. angels), has made himself visibly available, in the form of Jesus Christ who reportedly commanded the weather, walked on water, and raised the dead, instantly appeared and disappeared, etc., in front of many witnesses. Jesus also claimed to be born of super-natural parents and then later was born of a human mother in order to be present on the earth in human form, making himself available to be questioned and proved. The Bible says that Jesus created all things and that he was born of the Spirit and the Father making a super-natural Trinity: Colossians 1:15-18 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... John 3:6,35 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit...The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
What Else Can Be Understood?
Logical Assumption: Mankind's law making and law enforcing abilities, characteristics and behavior, etc., are also a product of our origin and can be tested just like anything else to determine the intelligent origin of the universe and it's laws.
Law: the observed regularity of nature - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Logical Assumption: In order to prevent an equivocation fallacy, there needs to be a common definition: All laws, man-made or otherwise, are all part of nature and have a common meaning: Laws cause physical regularity.
"A law of physics is a pattern that nature obeys without exception." - Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology
Logical Assumption: Man is fallible, and human lawmakers and law enforcers can't enforce laws perfectly. The fact that the laws of nature are followed perfectly and "without exception" by every particle in the universe seems to be evidence of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect God.
Testable Hypothesis 9: A human lawmaker creates laws and human law enforcers or man-made mechanisms then enforce the laws. Thus, it is reasonable that the laws of nature have a Law Maker and Law Enforcer.
Testable Hypothesis 10: An intelligent human being creates forces. Thus, it is reasonable that magnetism, nuclear forces, gravity, or any other natural forces, or stored forces contained in inertia and nuclear and chemical processes, are ultimately caused by an intelligent Being (Law Maker or Law Enforcer).
Testable Hypothesis 11: A human being creates, senses, processes, and stores information. Thus, it is reasonable that any information discovered, stored, or processed in nature was ultimately caused by an intelligent Being.
Testable Hypothesis 12: Intelligent human designers, lawmakers, and scientists are applauded of their intelligence if they can develop the most "elegant" or simple process, design, or law to accomplish a complex solution or outcome. Thus, it is reasonable that a cosmic Lawmaker or Designer would make the most simple and elegant laws or processes to accomplish a complex outcome. The simpler the process, relative to the complexity of the outcome, the more intelligent the designer.
Testable Hypothesis 13: Laws are generally a limitation on something in order to form uniformity, such as speed limits, roads and tunnels, etc. Thus, because of this dependancy, it seems reasonable that the laws of nature may be proof that the super-natural does exist. There may be higher laws, such as speeds possibly infinitely faster than the speed of light, infinitely smaller than the Planck distance, bi-directional, infinite time, and thus a super-natural Law Maker. Laws apparently imply a reduction in complexity. For example, our arrow of time is only unidirectional and apparently has a minimum time slice (i.e. Planck time = 10^-43 seconds). Thus, whatever is making/enforcing our laws of nature likely can operate between Planck time and Plank distances and would therefore likely be more complex than we are. One can try to imagine an intelligence that could operate infinitely faster than the speed of light, in infinitely small time increments bi-directionally (i.e. no beginning and no end), and in infinite dimensions of time.
These testable principles have apparently never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.
Thus, since intelligence, laws, machines, and processes are found in the universe, and we don't detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would apparently be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time and cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied laws or limitations.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or natural processes or the laws of nature, etc. In fact, testable evidence and predictions apparently completely contradict athesim. Therefore, unintelligent evolution or confidence in atheism seems to be blind faith with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence, useful for making predictions, demonstrates that God is logical and a super-natural Creator is likely necessary for the laws of nature and creation of the universe. In addition, the Bible has the only scientifically accurate creation account (see Bible Integrity). It seems that we should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to serve Him daily.
Fred Hoyle said: "there is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible." (The Nature of the Universe, p.109.)