Some things must be assumed

I have spent a lot of time considering the various issues concerning God's "tool marks" on the universe. Essentially, if you are entirely constrained within the system as well as being a part of the system, there are really no objective means by which the system can be analyzed for evidence of an external creator. Essentially, any behavior I attribute to a creator, can just as easily be attributed to the fundamental aspects of the system. Without a view from outside the system, there is no way to know.

Thankfully for us, we have a creator God who has chosen to communicate with mankind through His word, the Bible. In as much as we can know and understand an infinite God with finite minds, God has revealed Himself to us through His word. Now, this answers the question for the theologian who finds truth through supernatural revelation. For the scientist, who requires knowledge derived from observable criteria, this is not very helpful.

For the scientist to make some headway in the issue, we have to make an assumption. Without it, we are left to flail in circles within the constraints of a closed, inescapable system. So, here is what I propose as the fundamental assumption for our discourse:

All actors are either intelligent or non-intelligent.

To get to this, I need to lay some groundwork. (Mostly because I suspect, my terminology is not correct.) All things which happen in the universe are referred to as phenomena. A single thing is a phenomenon. The vast majority (99.999%) of things that happen have causes. (Newton's First Law of Motion covers these. Quantum Mechanics handles the other 0.001%.) Each cause represents an "Actor". If this were an English Grammar class, we would say, the "Actor" is the Subject to the "Cause" Verb acting on the Object "Phenomenon". For example, The Earth's Gravity (Actor) pulls (causing verb) on the Moon, making it change direction and stay in orbit around the Earth. Simply stated, the Actor is the thing that causes the phenomenon.

So, what is the difference between an "intelligent" and "non-intelligent" actor? An IQ over 110? A vocabulary of 50,000 words? No, the difference is purpose. The Earth's gravity acts on the Moon because that is how gravity works. Gravity is a basic property of matter and it behaves according to definable rules. Even Quantum Mechanic events which may act without "Actors" still operates according to definable probabilities. A "non-intelligent" actor always acts according to rules, regardless of the outcome. An "intelligent" actor intends an outcome when it undertakes an action. That is not to say, the Actor always achieves the intended outcome, but rather that some result was intended. A pitcher desiring to strike out the batter on a 3-2 count chooses a curve ball following two fast-balls, in hopes the batter is expecting the fast ball. The baseball follows a curved path on its way from the pitchers mound to the catcher's mitt because of the physics of spin on the ball, but the spin is on the ball, because the pitcher intended the ball to curve. Whether or not the pitcher succeeds depends as much on the batter's ability as on the pitcher's. But an intelligent actor need not be human, even a worker bee can act with intelligence. The bee leaves the hive with the intent of finding pollen and returning with the pollen to the hive. It is the intentionality of the act that makes it "intelligent".

As we proceed to examine the universe for God's "tool marks", we will be exploring along this line. What is the evidence left on something that is the result of intentional action, versus something that is the phenomenon of non-intelligent action?