How Science could disprove a Creator

Or at the very least — an intelligent one.

Humans are so homocentric. We don’t see the brain for the face, the nerve center for the brain, the cell for the nerve center, or the ampiphilic compound for the cell.

What is clear from all that we observe is that systems simple and complex have indeed arisen that partially shut themselves off from outside influences, and it seems this is necessary to cause intelligence – as opposed to the reverse assumption in Theology.

Within many fields, ranging from cosmology to systems in physics to information theory, entropy or randomness is the measure of low order or low systemization. As atoms have assembled to molecules where they can, the trend is from high entropy to low entropy, according to thermodynamics predicting a heat death of the Universe.

With heat sufficing as Creator, we have indeed seen the necessary elements arise for forming molecules, and a few star generations later, the elements necessary for life and intelligence. (As anecdotal and somewhat sketchy evidence for intelligence, our very own homocentric Solar System clocks in at the third star generation.)

I see from this a chance to be more intelligent than a possible Creator. Our Solar System is ~4.5Gyr old, and Homo Sapiens was born yesterday. We have billions of years to synthesize an element that our star generation and therefore our rumored Creator could not.

Maximilion

The lighter elements discovered very recently – in just a few centuries – as naturally occurring, we look to transuranic elements. Neptunium and Plutonium have been synthesized, but have also found naturally occurring within our solar system. Perhaps Technetium, but alas! Predicted by Isaac Asimov to occur naturally in decaying radioactive ore, this element is detected.

The hunt for the right element is on! Perhaps this has already happened without thought of implicating these two properties normally attributed to a Creator:

1. If we have created an element, or do so within say the next couple billion years, much faster than He could, the Creator is not powerful.
2. Furthermore, that if the Creator is some abstract such as high entropy, He is the opposite of intelligent. Not only is Theology left with only Deology and is so close to Cosmology that it should look to physics as Creator, but proponents of Intelligent Design in particular would have to look away from their Creator, and also away from observational evidence, for support of such.

In other words, we have billions of years to rise above the hell-fire, heat, high-entropy, random process of what created us, the Universe, and every system in it, from microscopic to macroscopic.

Perhaps we homocentric humans (or at least a select few specimens!) are already Intelligent Synthesists?

If so, a Creator (abstract or not) imagined by believers as some lowly magician only subservient to our psychological needs providing out of thin air the building blocks of life and intelligence, is ineligible as Catch-all and First Cause for debates on the topic of Creation.