Excellent thoughts here, Niwre. I guess I am surmising that there is either an ordered, intentional explanation for reality, or there is pure chance. And, as logic appears to me, the most coherent explanation for intentional reality would be God/Intelligence. If reality is not intentional, then Chance is only remaining answer (unintentional things are chance, the way I understand them). I realize a mixture of the two is probable as we look around us - but still, one or the other had to be the ultimate cause. You said: ...we can falsify everything down to the bear truth of being (I am, full stop). All else is based on observation, perception and interpretation and cannot be universally true. Thats absolute, but does not imply creation by a God... I agree that the direct implication of being is not creation by a God, but there is an implication that if I am - and I did not create myself, something (unintentional nature/chance) or someone (intentional intelligence/God) created me. I certainly see that at many levels of this discussion, some faith assumptions, and some common sense assumptions must be made (or else the discussion itself would be nearly impossible :-). To your final illustration regarding cells, atoms, etc. - I agree. Our observations/interpretations are limited by our current perceptions, technologies, etc. I am absolutely certain that there is a dramatic amount of information that we do not know, and maybe cannot know, about reality. But, in your scenario, the discovery of atoms did not reverse or disprove the existence of cells - it merely rearranged our understanding of where cells fit into the big picture. The existence of cells has remained absolute, but additional information has corrected (for now) our understanding of their makeup. Couldnt the same be true of ourselves, God, etc.? We may have enough information now to make a positive statement about their existence and even some coherent information about their purpose - but knowing full well that many more dots may be connected for us as we learn more?

I'm not sure if your illustration between evolution and intelligent design is correct in this piece. I would say that our capitalistic founders set up the parameters (intelligent design) for economic "life" to flourish and adapt, and it has, for 200+ years. True "evolution economics" would lead us to a totalitarian state, because the "fittest to survive" would always be the guy who can print the money and control the law. I see that trend happening now, as the federal government grows, and state/local governments + private sector shrinks. (That's what the 10th Amendment is supposed to protect us from!) Hopefully we will get some "intelligence" in Washington that will steer us back to our founding principles.