DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I still like your thinking. I agree with basically everything you said.

I think the issue though is with the 50/50 split.  It's hard to assign values to either, and with the assumption that some harmony may exist between the two, I think it would be even more difficult without further knowledge on the potential relationship.  But that's why I suggested a qualitative approach.  Just like that interaction I used as an example with the monkeys.  If I establish a relationship, then it should become easier to gain quantitative information later on, because I can more clearly define that relationship.  I like numbers as answers to problem, but sometimes they're not the best option, because even though they are necessary part of our lives, sometimes a 1 or 2 can't be descriptive or precise enough about human experience. If I say something was a "10" or that I was "blown away" by it, I would think in many cases the latter would better for explaining how I view an event or experience.

Human experience... many religious folk posit too much weight on this.
Human experience has many problems when one tries to ascertain how the world around us operates. It relies too much on our intuitions, which have come about through millennia of evolution at our scale. We are not equipped to deal with the quantum world, nor with the vastness of the Cosmos.
Certainly, it was a good starting point, but I think humanity now has the tools to confidently move beyond.

If you want to describe your feelings towards some event, "blown away" conveys the message quite well. But if you want to convey the event itself, so that others may appreciate it for themselves, then I think you need to be as quantitative as possible. For the quantitative scales (weight, luminosity, electrical charge, etc...) are the same for everyone, while "being blown away" isn't so.

A divine entity that is seemingly only a shared concept among believers isn't really something one can develop a relationship with, I think. Unless you're into one-way relationships. I'm sure many have gone that route for Indiana Jones or Wilma Flintstone, or even for real people like (and I'm about to show my age) Claudia Schiffer... but are those real relationships that can convey accurate information about the other entity?

What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.