Does "Cosmic Intelligence" imply you are a "Creationist?"
In many cases, Creationists and Evolutionists are polar opposites set on disproving the other: "what the thinker thinks, the prover proves." Were it not for each other, neither would have a specific viewpoint to assert. But what if there was another viewpoint? Of course, there are many viewpoints. This is what's good about life and why life is what it is. Arguments often dissolve with both sides convinced they have disproven the other, each existing somewhere within the overall order of things. But, in such cases, the overall order of things is not truly understood, and this is something even fundamentally understood to those posing their arguments.
While often taken to be a "Creationist,"I actually wouldn't consider myself to be a "Creationist" at all. I simply see evidence for an as yet "officially" unrecognized force (or perhaps "unofficially" recognized would be a better term?) which permeates the universe. Belief in "Cosmic Intelligence" (or an intelligent force underlying everything) is different from "Creationist" for many reasons, which at first might be hard to distinguish for someone who simply sees order as the natural result of chaos.
For the sake of brevity, you could dismissively state, "order comes from chaos." But, if I asked you, "why does order come from chaos?", you'll be stuck with one of a few answers: "because it just does" or you could show me a Mandelbrot set or launch a Cellular Automata program (which wouldn't explain why; these would describe how), OR you could just say, "that's what we're trying to figure out, dumbass!" Finally, you could be totally dismissive and say, "The question "why" is illogical as it is attempting to find purpose in the universe, which necessitates a Godhead."
But, I'll try to explain why I'm not a "Creationist," anyway... for starters, I don't believe in any Gods I've read about here on planet Earth, nor do I believe in any Godhead which has created all of "creation." I merely see that a "thing" only exists in relation to some other "thing" and that both "things" are actually the same "thing" underneath this illusion of separateness. We now realize that the universe is not made up of "separate things" at all, but a "whole thing" of "stuff," which only appears to be "separate things" when looked at through the spotlight of narrow focus... until the point of extremely narrow focus when this illusion finally breaks down and we realize we don't know what the hell this "stuff" really is at all, only that it is a "whole thing." All respected men who have examined this stuff have said as much, with a tone of total awe and consistent surprise.
Consciousness is a hard thing to pinpoint, so we tend to ignore it, for the most part, when we are examining "reality." The minutae of reality we examine scientifically in order to understand and apply this knowledge on a grander scale is exactly what we think it is: smaller "parts" of a whole. We grasp the universal reality in small bits, deciding "this thing" goes with "this thing" which goes with "this thing" which goes with "this thing"...
But we do not ignore consciousness completely. In scientific experiments, we are often careful to realize that our own consciousness, subconsciousness or unconsciousness might interfere with a "true" outcome, so we take every precaution to eliminate all possibilities in which we could inadvertantly taint the results of the experiment. We attempt to "control" it. This is a logical, intelligent decision on our part.
Yet, while logic itself is the result of labelling and ordering our world, logic "goes with" consciousness and consciousness "goes with" brain, which "goes with" neurons which "goes with" electro-chemical reactions which "goes with" the total organism, which is the result of this implicate order. Whatever consciousness actually is, all organisms have some degree of order within the environment of which they are part. Questioning "why" there is order is just as necessary to understanding the universe as it is to understanding anything else because this order is the very same thing that allows us to examine anything else in the first place. If there was no order, there would be chaos; if there was chaos, there would be no order and no logic. Therefore, the question "why is there order?" is not illogical and it does not necessitate a Godhead. It is simply asking, "why the implicate order of all this 'stuff'?"
And you could still respond with, "That's what we're trying to figure out, dumbass!" But, trying to extrapolate your consciousness from an unconscious system seems just as insane as claiming that the universe is not really an ordered or logical system at all, but rather a temporary result of a pre-existing chaos which will eventually return to the chaos from whence it came. But, you know what? That is Vedantic belief, which predated the Big Bang theory by thousands years. So, if you believe this, you are officially pronounced a "Scientific Creationist" by your own logic. However, unlike the Vedanta, which recognizes logic, order and consciousness for what they are, you would deny that this same force within you operates throughout the universe. You claim the force is not there, despite maintaining your being within its current. This makes you an insane creature in an insane world, with or without chaos, for you are part of a world which doesn't exist. There is no force of logic or reason to give rise to your so-called "logic" and "reason" (this can be taken two ways: either your logic and reason came from lack of either... or there is no logic or reason underlying what you currently consider your "logic" and "reason," thereby making you illogical.) Your opinion makes man separate from the universe, when he is clearly a part of it. So, you are looking in such a way that will never make sense.
If you are pointing to something "out there" which you explain with logic and reason, you say, "Look! Of course this is logical! It's right there in front of you! How can you deny it?" That makes the thing you are pointing to, necessarily, LOGICAL. Your consciousness is not created in a vaccuum, but a certain way of looking at the world makes it seem so, despite all the other consciousnesses you argue with or play with each day.
I would recommend Dean Radin's "Conscious Universe" book simply for entertaining different possibilities, if nothing else. I was ready to put it back on the shelf after that Preface, which struck me as supremely lame, but the rest of the book I found very interesting.
In addition, Alan Watt's "The Book" might better explain what little I said above.