Well, Calvin Cordazer Broadus, Jr/Snoop Dogg/Deuce Nine/etc…..I promised I’d get back to you. This will be my first installment.

What I find quite interesting is that you are arguing from an existentialist and nihilist playbook that in fact undercuts a significant part of your rant, particularly some of the human tragedies you mention. I will get to those in a future installment–perhaps the next one–though.

As I read your posting, it seems that you are trying to argue several points at the same time, and if I need to add any, please feel free to raise them:

(1) I used to believe in the God of the Bible with all my heart;
(2) Over time, I came to dislike the God of the Bible;
(3) I now do not believe in God at all.

In this installment, I will deal with #3: making the case for a Creator. My goal here is not to prove that there is a Creator, but rather to make the case that the conclusion of the existence of one is indeed rational, and that rationality is only bolstered via human advancements in science and engineering.

Others–such as Vox Day–have done a remarkable job making that case from the veracity of eyewitness testimony. Vox’s 2011 debate with Dominic Saltarelli was a classic: while Saltarelli’s effort was impressive, Vox scored a huge knockout in the first round with his emphasis on eyewitness testimony, and he even made a mathematical case for his position.

I’m not going to take that route, even though it is an excellent one.

Oh no. I’m going to take the route of science and engineering.

Unfortunately, for the Atheist, the case for a Creator is a very strong one. This is because–unlike the Israelites of Moses’ time–we have a greater understanding of science and intelligence, and, contrary to the musings of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris, that undercuts the case against God.

The “New Atheists” love to speak of their great reliance on science, dismissing religion in general–Christianity in particular–as “superstition”. As they do this, they display great ignorance of science, technology, the dynamics of intelligence, philosophy, and–yes–even theology.

My background is in engineering; my undergraduate degree is in aeronautical engineering. In my professional life, I have been designing IT systems for over 20 years. Those experiences have included plant-floor based automation, complex databases and data warehouses, single-user and client/server applications, as well as web-based applications that include e-commerce functionality.

Systems–particularly those that are event-driven–are with us to stay. That term–event-driven–is important: it is crucial to the understanding of feedback control systems.

Almost anyone with an engineering degree has had one or more courses in control system design. This is because almost every field of engineering involves designing feedback controls that regulate the behavior of systems, ensuring their stability against a variety of adverse inputs (step, ramp, sinusoidal, even impulses and random excitations). Examples of these include flight controls on aircraft (including autopilots), as well as robots and environmental controls that are common in both homes and offices ad industrial plants.

Such feedback control systems are very complex mathematically, requiring an understanding not only of calculus but of differential equations for design and analysis, and that is just for the “simple” problems. (The more advanced problems involve partial differential equations, and many of these systems require high-level tools for efficient design.)

Such systems don’t just happen on their own; they require a combination of intelligence and mechanical acuity–both dexterity and power–for both design and construction.

Now where am I going with this?

Every living thing–from a single-cell bacteria to human beings–has such feedback control systems: they are called homeostatic controls. These systems regulate various properties, ensuring that they remain within limits that are required for the survival of that organism.

Examples include the human body’s organ systems that regulate body temperature, blood sugar, and oxygen supply to various systems. These systems are very complex, involving organs with both structure and function, the production of enzymes that serve as catalysts for chemical reactions, biochemical pathways that often interface with each other with great precision, the production and regulation of chemical neurotransmitters, the integration of a central processor that (a) stores vast amounts of information, (b) generates signals that allow for both voluntary and involuntary functions, (c) responds to signals from other organs and systems, and even has the power to innovate.

Oh, and with my aerospace background, I could give you an earful about flight controls and aerodynamics of birds and insects, comparing them with man-made aircraft. Aerodynamic efficiency, accurate navigation systems, variable camber wings, variable geometry wings, stability AND controllability in flight; no need for runways for takeoff and landing. Yes, birds are quite the flying machines. Ditto for insects. The kicker: birds don’t need pilots or mechanics, and they can even reproduce themselves.

Here’s the catch: feedback control systems carry a signature of human-like intelligence. In other words, they do not reflect bird intelligence, or feline intelligence, or canine intelligence, or beaver intelligence. We know these things because we know what the signatures of intelligence in other animals would look like. That is because we have biologists who spend their entire careers studying particular animals.

Fact: No other animal has designed a feedback control system.

And yet every organism has that common hallmark in both structure and function: feedback control systems. In many cases, thousands of them.

What this tells me:

(a) One can rationally conclude that there is a very powerful, intelligent Creator that is far superior in both power and intelligence to any human or aggregation of humans.

(b) That Creator has made humans with intelligence and power that reflects–on a smaller scale–the very image of that Creator.

You are more than welcome to propose a competing model.

But here’s the thing: the whole premise that Man is made in the image of God is not something I made up, and yet the very signature of human advancements in technology–from solid state electronics to nanotechnology–only makes that case stronger and not weaker.

Do with that what you will.