Can God be seen in the maths?

[Angrboda]

So, let me get this straight.

This argument goes like this:

This thing over here appears, on the surface, to look something like this thing over here. Ipso facto they are exactly the same.

That's the problem with arguments from analogy. They are not conclusive. The fact that two things parallel each other with respect to a handful of attributes is no evidence that the parallelism extends to other attributes. Beyond that, we have good reason to believe that another process besides design can produce results that look like design. Namely, evolution. But there is an even deeper flaw in this argument from analogy. This is because the analogy to design draws a parallel between the human ability of design and the natural results of the process. The problem is that the human process of design might have a naturalistic origin in evolution as well. So the argument is presupposing that the human capacity for design does not have a naturalistic origin, otherwise the logical conclusion from the analogy would be that the capacity to design nature and DNA also has a naturalistic origin. It's a bit of misdirection referring to the processes as a result of design without examining the sources of the capacity of design. It is assuming that design isn't an artifact of natural processes, like the design itself supposedly isn't the result of natural processes. That's a circular assumption.