Evolution has its own rules.
1. Material complexity has developed through purely natural processes. God was not involved in creating life's diversity
2. Evolution is true as a basis. All findings have to be interpreted through an evolution filter. If it fits then pronounce it loudly. If it doesn't say we need more time to explain it.
3. How life was created from none life is irrelevant to evolution.
1. Science can only observe nature, so unless God is manifest, this is a given, and only expected, unless you would like science to speculate like never before on God.
2. Dig up a poodle from Permian strata and I assure you that basis will be broken. Find a chicken that grows hair. Something that actually contradicts a theory that explains the observations.
3. How matter came to be is irrelevant to climatology, and climatology deals intimately with matter. We do not need to know life's origin to utilize life science. Evolution certainly approaches the origins of life, but they are not directly relevant. Where a raw material comes from is not relevant to how a factory reshapes it.
Given these rules you have defined God out of the equation in the assumptions. You could never find intelligence because you are not looking for it and you assumed it away.
We use as few assumptions as possible. There is no assumption, broadly speaking, that God isn't moving every electron in the universe in a predictable way, but the evidence does not dictate that he is. Scientists won't just assume God in. If God isn't needed to balance the equation 2 + 2 = 4, we won't make it 2 + 2 + God - God (hiding his influence) = 4. And besides, how can you rule out Brahma being the creator? Science cannot. Maybe God contracted Brahma to build the universe. You can't know, and neither can science. Unless intelligence is apparent -- prime numbers in the human genome; a mountain cleaved clean in three, the middle removed and the top set flush with the bottom, with YHWH inscribed between -- it shouldn't be assumed. He have no proof it wasn't the Celestial Teapot, and everyone assumes that away. We stick with what is verifiable. The only reason you see intelligence is because you assume it.
But if you were looking for intelligence you could find it scientifically. Intelligence is both qualitative and quantitative. For example to can measure information entropy spikes.
I don't understand, please elaborate.
DNA has an alphabet and specific syntax whose information is understood by a third party, ribosomes, which creates something very specific from the information encoded in the DNA.
It's chemistry. It's not akin to human language which is constructed by intelligence. You would have to demonstrate that there was an intelligent component to chemistry to call it "information" in proper sense. With the definition you give, weather is a form of information encoded by the structure of the planet and previous weather conditions, and a third party could "read" it to tell you the output. Perhaps we need a universal definition for information.
An analogy: Someone wrote the master design, wrote it down in an instruction manual (DNA) and then created a computer that understood and used the information (ribosome).
Define the someone, because as we see it now, using your analogy, the computers are being provided their instructions by other computers, and a master design is not apparent, unless it is meant to mutate.
Evolutions take abiogenesis and the big bang as articles of faith. The big bang violated every laws of physics and chemistry: first and second law of thermodynamics, gravity and relativity.
You will get a Nobel Prize for demonstrating how. Your problem is that you have very rudimentary knowledge of the topic, and think that scientists are either ignoring such a blatant problem or that they are ignorant of it. I'm personally curious as to how you will invoke one of the four fundamental forces of nature when it wasn't originally a separate force. Lots of math to wind back space into such a small point, and bring it all up to such a high temperature. I'll say that I have a certain trust in the the body of cosmologists capable of running it, as it is beyond me. But if you or some other creationist could run the math and show there's a conspiracy on, you'd definitely be able to call into question the Big Bang Theory. You'd think this would be a top priority, but instead, you all cite laws that you think break it. I would enjoy hearing how you think gravity, relativity, and the first and second law of thermodynamics break a theory not predicated on telling us what was doing the banging, but how the banging went down.
Also evolutionist start after life was created from non life. These are giant leaps of faith that evolutionist accept on faith not scientific fact.
We accept that the Theory of Evolution only explains the diversification of extant life, not its origin, on faith? What? Or are you criticizing us for not knowing, or claiming to know everything?
IMO you will only stick with verifiable evidence if it fits your world view. You have defined the terms that the only explanation is naturalism. You have left no room for intelligence. If it were presented you would reject it based on you rules that everything has to be explained by purely natural causes. You quest for proof is really a philosophical arguement not a scientific one. You just don't see it.
Well, give me some verifiable evidence supporting your world view. And for what it's worth, intelligence is welcome, so long as it is scientifically verifiable. Incidentally, science stems from philosophy, and it does isolate things to the natural, observable universe, as a matter of principle. I see it just fine. I don't see anything else (could you point at something supernatural for me?). I see plenty of people who believe there is something else, based on what they feel in their gut, or based on what the Bible told them. Let me ask, as an aside, what you think would be more likely to be reconstructed if all the world's texts were destroyed, and everyone forgot everything: evolutionary theory, or the Bible? I hope this doesn't give you the impression the two are at odds, most scientists would disagree, but I think it illustrates what is evident over what is a novel work.