Creation of human is possible

[Age]

How come an intelligent agent cannot create humans through a process if evolution can do this through a blind process?

You are jumping to conclusion and making too many assumptions.
Based on a bottom-up approach, you assumed there is an intelligent creator based on faith and without solid sound empirical "proofs". This is not critical thinking and being rational. It is rather veering toward being delusional if one is very insistent on it.

I would not prefer to use 'blind process' which imply there is an entity that is blind.

Evolution is based on real empirical evidence and inferred top-down to whatever the conclusions that are supported by the real empirical evidences plus philosophical rationalization.
As such based on real empirical evidences, living things emerge out of the evolutionary process [btw without imputing 'blindness].

Since I am starting from what is really real, what is the problem with that? There is no critical and significant reason for me to assume there is an intelligent creator at all.

You on the other hand is starting with a presumption of an intelligent creator based on faith and without sound and valid verifications and justifications. WHY?
This presumption or rather insistent there is real intelligent creator arise from a psychological problem linked to the inherent existential crisis. [you are likely ignorant or deliberately ignore this point]

I am not saying that there is a God who created humans. I am saying if we accept that human is the result of evolution which is a blind process then it is feasible that an intelligent agent like a human creates humans.

When did you say that, previously?

[bahman]

You MEAN "evolution is a blind process", to you. To me, evolution is NOT a blind process.

WHY would 'evolution' be a "blind process" when what is actually happening and has occurred can be very easily SEEN. Evolution is also the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS process in which Creation, Itself, occurs. As evident by 'you' evolved AND created human beings.

Also, how could ONE thing ONLY create EVERY thing, or even ANY thing, no matter how intelligent One agent is?

To me, because of your FAILURE to be able to answer my clarifying or challenging questions OPENLY and Honestly and logically, throughout this forum, and your failure to respond to my statements logically without contradicting your previous comments, as well, proves that your assumptions and theories on things are just plain False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

See, until you can explain what you REALLY MEAN by defining words in a Truly uniformed and logical way, without contradicting "yourself" ever, which means in a way that EVERY one could agree with and accept, then you will just have to admit that your views and words here could be Wrong or Incorrect. But, sadly for you, this is NOT some thing you can bring "yourself" to doing, correct?

By blind process, I mean that it is not guided by an intelligent agent.

So, why do you not just write what you do actually mean?

Because I thought it was clear.

[bahman]

You are jumping to conclusion and making too many assumptions.
Based on a bottom-up approach, you assumed there is an intelligent creator based on faith and without solid sound empirical "proofs". This is not critical thinking and being rational. It is rather veering toward being delusional if one is very insistent on it.

I would not prefer to use 'blind process' which imply there is an entity that is blind.

Evolution is based on real empirical evidence and inferred top-down to whatever the conclusions that are supported by the real empirical evidences plus philosophical rationalization.
As such based on real empirical evidences, living things emerge out of the evolutionary process [btw without imputing 'blindness].

Since I am starting from what is really real, what is the problem with that? There is no critical and significant reason for me to assume there is an intelligent creator at all.

You on the other hand is starting with a presumption of an intelligent creator based on faith and without sound and valid verifications and justifications. WHY?
This presumption or rather insistent there is real intelligent creator arise from a psychological problem linked to the inherent existential crisis. [you are likely ignorant or deliberately ignore this point]

I am not saying that there is a God who created humans. I am saying if we accept that human is the result of evolution which is a blind process then it is feasible that an intelligent agent like a human creates humans.

When did you say that, previously?

I just elaborated.

[Age]

By blind process, I mean that it is not guided by an intelligent agent.

So, why do you not just write what you do actually mean?

Because I thought it was clear.

And here my friends is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the very reason WHY confusion, bickering, and arguing persisted for so long in the days when this was being written. EVERY adult THOUGHT that what they were ACTUALLY MEANING was clear, so instead of just saying what they ACTUALLY MEANT, for reasons only they would know, they would say something completely different. As SHOWN and PROVED above throughout this forum.

[Age]

I am not saying that there is a God who created humans. I am saying if we accept that human is the result of evolution which is a blind process then it is feasible that an intelligent agent like a human creates humans.

When did you say that, previously?

I just elaborated.

Here is ANOTHER example of just how long it took some of these human beings to just say what they ACTUALLY MEANT.

[simplicity]

Sumthin cannot come from nuthin... so what takes new form and/or shape in the universe is just a certain modification of an already existing material.

Believe it or not, the problem really isn't with the Universe, it's our pea-sized brain which is incapable of knowing much of anything.

[Veritas Aequitas]

How come an intelligent agent cannot create humans through a process if evolution can do this through a blind process?

You are jumping to conclusion and making too many assumptions.
Based on a bottom-up approach, you assumed there is an intelligent creator based on faith and without solid sound empirical "proofs". This is not critical thinking and being rational. It is rather veering toward being delusional if one is very insistent on it.

I would not prefer to use 'blind process' which imply there is an entity that is blind.

Evolution is based on real empirical evidence and inferred top-down to whatever the conclusions that are supported by the real empirical evidences plus philosophical rationalization.
As such based on real empirical evidences, living things emerge out of the evolutionary process [btw without imputing 'blindness].

Since I am starting from what is really real, what is the problem with that? There is no critical and significant reason for me to assume there is an intelligent creator at all.

You on the other hand is starting with a presumption of an intelligent creator based on faith and without sound and valid verifications and justifications. WHY?
This presumption or rather insistent there is real intelligent creator arise from a psychological problem linked to the inherent existential crisis. [you are likely ignorant or deliberately ignore this point]

I am not saying that there is a God who created humans. I am saying if we accept that human is the result of evolution which is a blind process then it is feasible that an intelligent agent like a human creates humans.

As explained earlier, your contention is based on the bottom-up approach which is not realistic at all.

Evolution is a top-down approach therefore cannot be compatible [nor reconcilable] with your bottom-up approach at all.

[bahman]

You are jumping to conclusion and making too many assumptions.
Based on a bottom-up approach, you assumed there is an intelligent creator based on faith and without solid sound empirical "proofs". This is not critical thinking and being rational. It is rather veering toward being delusional if one is very insistent on it.

I would not prefer to use 'blind process' which imply there is an entity that is blind.

Evolution is based on real empirical evidence and inferred top-down to whatever the conclusions that are supported by the real empirical evidences plus philosophical rationalization.
As such based on real empirical evidences, living things emerge out of the evolutionary process [btw without imputing 'blindness].

Since I am starting from what is really real, what is the problem with that? There is no critical and significant reason for me to assume there is an intelligent creator at all.

You on the other hand is starting with a presumption of an intelligent creator based on faith and without sound and valid verifications and justifications. WHY?
This presumption or rather insistent there is real intelligent creator arise from a psychological problem linked to the inherent existential crisis. [you are likely ignorant or deliberately ignore this point]

I am not saying that there is a God who created humans. I am saying if we accept that human is the result of evolution which is a blind process then it is feasible that an intelligent agent like a human creates humans.

As explained earlier, your contention is based on the bottom-up approach which is not realistic at all.

Evolution is a top-down approach therefore cannot be compatible [nor reconcilable] with your bottom-up approach at all.

Do you mind elaborating that why evolution is top-down process?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am not saying that there is a God who created humans. I am saying if we accept that human is the result of evolution which is a blind process then it is feasible that an intelligent agent like a human creates humans.

As explained earlier, your contention is based on the bottom-up approach which is not realistic at all.

Evolution is a top-down approach therefore cannot be compatible [nor reconcilable] with your bottom-up approach at all.

Do you mind elaborating that why evolution is top-down process?

I have explained that many times.

The process of evolution is inferred philosophically from empirical evidences of reality from the present digging-down [metaphorically] to the past as far as the evidences can support it. You get this point or do you need further elaboration?

OTOH, your thinking process is bottom-up [metaphorically] with the assumption [based on faith without proofs] that is a starting point, a beginning of something-X that creates whatever is at present and the past.
As such you built your case from bottom-up and attempt to reconcile that beginning to the present reality.
Because you assumed a starting point [a creator - whatever that is] there is a reality Gap between that creator and present reality.

To ground your conclusion based on such an assumption and insist whatever your conclusions are real is delusional i.e. does not conform to reality.

[bahman]

As explained earlier, your contention is based on the bottom-up approach which is not realistic at all.

Evolution is a top-down approach therefore cannot be compatible [nor reconcilable] with your bottom-up approach at all.

Do you mind elaborating that why evolution is top-down process?

I have explained that many times.

The process of evolution is inferred philosophically from empirical evidences of reality from the present digging-down [metaphorically] to the past as far as the evidences can support it. You get this point or do you need further elaboration?

OTOH, your thinking process is bottom-up [metaphorically] with the assumption [based on faith without proofs] that is a starting point, a beginning of something-X that creates whatever is at present and the past.
As such you built your case from bottom-up and attempt to reconcile that beginning to the present reality.
Because you assumed a starting point [a creator - whatever that is] there is a reality Gap between that creator and present reality.

To ground your conclusion based on such an assumption and insist whatever your conclusions are real is delusional i.e. does not conform to reality.

I didn't get your point about top-down process, evolution. I didn't get your point that why creation is a down-top process.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Do you mind elaborating that why evolution is top-down process?

I have explained that many times.

The process of evolution is inferred philosophically from empirical evidences of reality from the present digging-down [metaphorically] to the past as far as the evidences can support it. You get this point or do you need further elaboration?

OTOH, your thinking process is bottom-up [metaphorically] with the assumption [based on faith without proofs] that is a starting point, a beginning of something-X that creates whatever is at present and the past.
As such you built your case from bottom-up and attempt to reconcile that beginning to the present reality.
Because you assumed a starting point [a creator - whatever that is] there is a reality Gap between that creator and present reality.

To ground your conclusion based on such an assumption and insist whatever your conclusions are real is delusional i.e. does not conform to reality.

I didn't get your point about top-down process, evolution. I didn't get your point that why creation is a down-top process.

I thought such concepts were very basic.
It is critical you grasp the point to understand where you stand on your position.

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_ ... -up_design

A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and stepwise refinement and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems in a reverse engineering fashion.
Top down approach starts with the big picture. It breaks down from there into smaller segments.

A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to more complex systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of the emergent system.

Top-down reasoning in ethics is when the reasoner starts from abstract universalisable principles and then reasons down them to particular situations.
Bottom-up reasoning occurs when the reasoner starts from intuitive particular situational judgements and then reasons up to principles.

In my case of a top-down approach to evolution, that's Darwin's approach to evolution, i.e.
it starts from whatever is empirically observable and justifiable,
therefrom the principles of evolution are inferred as far as the evidences are sufficient to support them.
There is no "first cause" to evolution.
This will stretch back [down] to the Big Bang without the certainty of any first instant of a bang.

In your bottom up approach, you are assuming there is a sort of 'first cause' that started the first creations that contribute to the subsequent creations until to the creations we can observe at present.
I argued you 'assumption' taken as certainty as the starting point of the present reality is delusional.

Another view is,
the top-down approach is a kind of Reductionism,
the top-down approach will indicate there is a possible problem of infinite regression.
However the problem is mitigated by limiting the conclusion to what is empirically observable and verifiable.

In the bottom-approach [yours], there is no consideration for infinite regression because the sequel of creations has a certain beginning, thus no infinite regression.
However, this creates a problem of a reality-gap or the First Cause Problem.

Hope you get that?

[bahman]

I have explained that many times.

The process of evolution is inferred philosophically from empirical evidences of reality from the present digging-down [metaphorically] to the past as far as the evidences can support it. You get this point or do you need further elaboration?

OTOH, your thinking process is bottom-up [metaphorically] with the assumption [based on faith without proofs] that is a starting point, a beginning of something-X that creates whatever is at present and the past.
As such you built your case from bottom-up and attempt to reconcile that beginning to the present reality.
Because you assumed a starting point [a creator - whatever that is] there is a reality Gap between that creator and present reality.

To ground your conclusion based on such an assumption and insist whatever your conclusions are real is delusional i.e. does not conform to reality.

I didn't get your point about top-down process, evolution. I didn't get your point that why creation is a down-top process.

I thought such concepts were very basic.
It is critical you grasp the point to understand where you stand on your position.

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_ ... -up_design

A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and stepwise refinement and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems in a reverse engineering fashion.
Top down approach starts with the big picture. It breaks down from there into smaller segments.

A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to more complex systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of the emergent system.

Top-down reasoning in ethics is when the reasoner starts from abstract universalisable principles and then reasons down them to particular situations.
Bottom-up reasoning occurs when the reasoner starts from intuitive particular situational judgements and then reasons up to principles.

I was aware of top-down and bottom-up approaches. What I didn't get was that why evolution is a top-down approach.

In my case of a top-down approach to evolution, that's Darwin's approach to evolution, i.e.
it starts from whatever is empirically observable and justifiable,
therefrom the principles of evolution are inferred as far as the evidences are sufficient to support them.

I agree that Darwinism is a top-down approach in which from the macro-level you deduce something about the micro-level. But the opposite also is correct, namely something from the micro-level, what we call genetic, induces something about the macro-level. Both approaches must be consistent with each other.

There is no "first cause" to evolution.
This will stretch back [down] to the Big Bang without the certainty of any first instant of a bang.

If we accept that evolution is partly the result of genetic change in species then it follows that one cannot deny the involvement of an intelligent agent in it.

In your bottom up approach, you are assuming there is a sort of 'first cause' that started the first creations that contribute to the subsequent creations until to the creations we can observe at present.
I argued you 'assumption' taken as certainty as the starting point of the present reality is delusional.

Another view is,
the top-down approach is a kind of Reductionism,
the top-down approach will indicate there is a possible problem of infinite regression.
However the problem is mitigated by limiting the conclusion to what is empirically observable and verifiable.

In the bottom-approach [yours], there is no consideration for infinite regression because the sequel of creations has a certain beginning, thus no infinite regression.
However, this creates a problem of a reality-gap or the First Cause Problem.

Hope you get that?

Considering the fact that bottom-up and top-down approaches are just methods of study and they have to be consistent one can argue playing with the genetic code in an intelligent manner or a blind process leads to the same result. Therefore my argument holds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I didn't get your point about top-down process, evolution. I didn't get your point that why creation is a down-top process.

I thought such concepts were very basic.
It is critical you grasp the point to understand where you stand on your position.

Note:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-down_ ... -up_design

A top-down approach (also known as stepwise design and stepwise refinement and in some cases used as a synonym of decomposition) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems in a reverse engineering fashion.
Top down approach starts with the big picture. It breaks down from there into smaller segments.

A bottom-up approach is the piecing together of systems to give rise to more complex systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of the emergent system.

Top-down reasoning in ethics is when the reasoner starts from abstract universalisable principles and then reasons down them to particular situations.
Bottom-up reasoning occurs when the reasoner starts from intuitive particular situational judgements and then reasons up to principles.

I was aware of top-down and bottom-up approaches. What I didn't get was that why evolution is a top-down approach.

In my case of a top-down approach to evolution, that's Darwin's approach to evolution, i.e.
it starts from whatever is empirically observable and justifiable,
therefrom the principles of evolution are inferred as far as the evidences are sufficient to support them.

I agree that Darwinism is a top-down approach in which from the macro-level you deduce something about the micro-level. But the opposite also is correct, namely something from the micro-level, what we call genetic, induces something about the macro-level. Both approaches must be consistent with each other.

Nope.
The point is in this case you are relying fundamentally on the results [R] of the top-down approach.
If you use R to go-upward from R that is not a bottom-up approach per se.
That is still fundamentally a top-down approach where one use the top-down principles to go up and down the processes.

But to stretch and extended beyond R to something intelligent without solid proof is a bottom up approach per se.

You are stopping the infinite regress to speculate a starting point at a 'bottom' with certainty.

There is no "first cause" to evolution.
This will stretch back [down] to the Big Bang without the certainty of any first instant of a bang.

If we accept that evolution is partly the result of genetic change in species then it follows that one cannot deny the involvement of an intelligent agent in it.

No, it does not follow.

The evidence support the existence of genes but there is no evidence of any creator creating the genes like in a science lab.
You are merely speculating hastily as driven by an inherent existential crisis which is psychological.
What is real is your psychological state, there is no real intelligent creator.

In your bottom up approach, you are assuming there is a sort of 'first cause' that started the first creations that contribute to the subsequent creations until to the creations we can observe at present.
I argued you 'assumption' taken as certainty as the starting point of the present reality is delusional.

Another view is,
the top-down approach is a kind of Reductionism,
the top-down approach will indicate there is a possible problem of infinite regression.
However the problem is mitigated by limiting the conclusion to what is empirically observable and verifiable.

In the bottom-approach [yours], there is no consideration for infinite regression because the sequel of creations has a certain beginning, thus no infinite regression.
However, this creates a problem of a reality-gap or the First Cause Problem.

Hope you get that?

Considering the fact that bottom-up and top-down approaches are just methods of study and they have to be consistent one can argue playing with the genetic code in an intelligent manner or a blind process leads to the same result. Therefore my argument holds.

As indicated above there is a big difference between the bottom-up and top-down approaches as I had defined them.

The top-down approach do not imply any blind process but each steps down is supported by empirical evidences. How can you say that is a blind process?
What the top-down approach does not do is to conclude there is a starting point [first cause, unmoved mover and the like] with certainty.

We have empirical evidences to infer top-down to some sort of genetic 'code' but there is no evidence of any "coder" [real programmer] at all.
From the top-down approach we infer a top down principles and can use to work it up and down the processes; "up' in this case is not a bottom-up processes per se.

Your bottom-up approach is an abuse of the top-down empirical principles in speculating something -an intelligent creator - beyond the limit of the empirical principles.
Obviously you can speculate or fantasize a creator but you cannot provide supporting evidences for it.

Note the extreme of the pure bottom-up approach.
Theists will simply jump to conclusion that God exists based on blind faith and therefrom claimed God created the universe and all things in it.

In your case you are abusing the top-down approach to support your bottom up approach.
It is just like many theists [e.g. WLC] using scientific theories to support their claim that God exists, which indulges in an equivocation and conflating science [empirical] with the transcendental [divine].

[bahman]

I thought such concepts were very basic.
It is critical you grasp the point to understand where you stand on your position.

Note:

I was aware of top-down and bottom-up approaches. What I didn't get was that why evolution is a top-down approach.

In my case of a top-down approach to evolution, that's Darwin's approach to evolution, i.e.
it starts from whatever is empirically observable and justifiable,
therefrom the principles of evolution are inferred as far as the evidences are sufficient to support them.

I agree that Darwinism is a top-down approach in which from the macro-level you deduce something about the micro-level. But the opposite also is correct, namely something from the micro-level, what we call genetic, induces something about the macro-level. Both approaches must be consistent with each other.

Nope.
The point is in this case you are relying fundamentally on the results [R] of the top-down approach.
If you use R to go-upward from R that is not a bottom-up approach per se.
That is still fundamentally a top-down approach where one use the top-down principles to go up and down the processes.

But to stretch and extended beyond R to something intelligent without solid proof is a bottom up approach per se.

You are stopping the infinite regress to speculate a starting point at a 'bottom' with certainty.

There is no "first cause" to evolution.
This will stretch back [down] to the Big Bang without the certainty of any first instant of a bang.

If we accept that evolution is partly the result of genetic change in species then it follows that one cannot deny the involvement of an intelligent agent in it.

No, it does not follow.

The evidence support the existence of genes but there is no evidence of any creator creating the genes like in a science lab.
You are merely speculating hastily as driven by an inherent existential crisis which is psychological.
What is real is your psychological state, there is no real intelligent creator.

In your bottom up approach, you are assuming there is a sort of 'first cause' that started the first creations that contribute to the subsequent creations until to the creations we can observe at present.
I argued you 'assumption' taken as certainty as the starting point of the present reality is delusional.

Another view is,
the top-down approach is a kind of Reductionism,
the top-down approach will indicate there is a possible problem of infinite regression.
However the problem is mitigated by limiting the conclusion to what is empirically observable and verifiable.

In the bottom-approach [yours], there is no consideration for infinite regression because the sequel of creations has a certain beginning, thus no infinite regression.
However, this creates a problem of a reality-gap or the First Cause Problem.

Hope you get that?

Considering the fact that bottom-up and top-down approaches are just methods of study and they have to be consistent one can argue playing with the genetic code in an intelligent manner or a blind process leads to the same result. Therefore my argument holds.

As indicated above there is a big difference between the bottom-up and top-down approaches as I had defined them.

The top-down approach do not imply any blind process but each steps down is supported by empirical evidences. How can you say that is a blind process?
What the top-down approach does not do is to conclude there is a starting point [first cause, unmoved mover and the like] with certainty.

We have empirical evidences to infer top-down to some sort of genetic 'code' but there is no evidence of any "coder" [real programmer] at all.
From the top-down approach we infer a top down principles and can use to work it up and down the processes; "up' in this case is not a bottom-up processes per se.

Your bottom-up approach is an abuse of the top-down empirical principles in speculating something -an intelligent creator - beyond the limit of the empirical principles.
Obviously you can speculate or fantasize a creator but you cannot provide supporting evidences for it.

Note the extreme of the pure bottom-up approach.
Theists will simply jump to conclusion that God exists based on blind faith and therefrom claimed God created the universe and all things in it.

In your case you are abusing the top-down approach to support your bottom up approach.
It is just like many theists [e.g. WLC] using scientific theories to support their claim that God exists, which indulges in an equivocation and conflating science [empirical] with the transcendental [divine].

Again, the top-down and the bottom-up approach must be consistent therefore you can change genes and expect an appropriate outcome that coincides with what you see in evolution.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I was aware of top-down and bottom-up approaches. What I didn't get was that why evolution is a top-down approach.


I agree that Darwinism is a top-down approach in which from the macro-level you deduce something about the micro-level. But the opposite also is correct, namely something from the micro-level, what we call genetic, induces something about the macro-level. Both approaches must be consistent with each other.

Nope.
The point is in this case you are relying fundamentally on the results [R] of the top-down approach.
If you use R to go-upward from R that is not a bottom-up approach per se.
That is still fundamentally a top-down approach where one use the top-down principles to go up and down the processes.

But to stretch and extended beyond R to something intelligent without solid proof is a bottom up approach per se.

You are stopping the infinite regress to speculate a starting point at a 'bottom' with certainty.

If we accept that evolution is partly the result of genetic change in species then it follows that one cannot deny the involvement of an intelligent agent in it.

No, it does not follow.

The evidence support the existence of genes but there is no evidence of any creator creating the genes like in a science lab.
You are merely speculating hastily as driven by an inherent existential crisis which is psychological.
What is real is your psychological state, there is no real intelligent creator.

Considering the fact that bottom-up and top-down approaches are just methods of study and they have to be consistent one can argue playing with the genetic code in an intelligent manner or a blind process leads to the same result. Therefore my argument holds.

As indicated above there is a big difference between the bottom-up and top-down approaches as I had defined them.

The top-down approach do not imply any blind process but each steps down is supported by empirical evidences. How can you say that is a blind process?
What the top-down approach does not do is to conclude there is a starting point [first cause, unmoved mover and the like] with certainty.

We have empirical evidences to infer top-down to some sort of genetic 'code' but there is no evidence of any "coder" [real programmer] at all.
From the top-down approach we infer a top down principles and can use to work it up and down the processes; "up' in this case is not a bottom-up processes per se.

Your bottom-up approach is an abuse of the top-down empirical principles in speculating something -an intelligent creator - beyond the limit of the empirical principles.
Obviously you can speculate or fantasize a creator but you cannot provide supporting evidences for it.

Note the extreme of the pure bottom-up approach.
Theists will simply jump to conclusion that God exists based on blind faith and therefrom claimed God created the universe and all things in it.

In your case you are abusing the top-down approach to support your bottom up approach.
It is just like many theists [e.g. WLC] using scientific theories to support their claim that God exists, which indulges in an equivocation and conflating science [empirical] with the transcendental [divine].

Again, the top-down and the bottom-up approach must be consistent therefore you can change genes and expect an appropriate outcome that coincides with what you see in evolution.

The point is with the top-down approach, there is no need to touch the bottom.
There is no need for me to jump to the conclusion there is an intelligent creator behind all that is observable in reality.

At present scientists [top-down approach] can change genes [splicing and replacing]
http://www.premierbiosoft.com/tech_note ... icing.html
without the need to believe an intelligent creator exists as real.

Physicists and astronomers can still predict the workings of the universe without an instantaneous-one-moment-in-time-Bang of a Big Bang.

The question of your need for 'consistency' is unnecessary.
The need for your "consistency" in this case is purely for your own psychological reasons.

In your case your bottom-up conclusion itself [intelligent creator] is not realistic, i.e. it is illusory and delusional.
You have no "proofs" [re reality] there is an intelligent creator.