Continuing Conversations: Evolution and Intelligent Design

I have a developed a different model of an elementary particle than the current quark particle model. This model is using spinning subspaces. I am giving away downloads of the two books I developed describing this model at http://stores.lulu.com/walkerdb . Subspaces are concentrated spaces that are larger on the inside than they are on the outside. Our space exists between and because of these subspaces. Gravity, ElectricMagnetic interactions exists through the subspaces. But there’s more. Life actually exists within the subspace. The awareness has to do with infinite speed light traveling an infinite distance within the subspace. We can't see this from our flatten view of space. We only see the speed of light.
There is more within these books. The ordering that is contained within our bodies is explained here. And if you want to see a case for life after death, that’s here too.
See how the 7 days of Genesis is an exact description on how the universe exists. See something entirely different. Write to me at Butterworth@subspaceuniverse.com

I think that the main problem is that the official science has gone beyond it's defined scope, toward the interpretation. Now when mainstreem scientists have gone too far, it is hard to abandon the red zone and say: "Sorry! Maybe, we were wrong in our interpretation. Maybe, there is an intelligent designer."
So the problem lays in the hearts of the mainstreem scientists. In this situation their reputation is at stake. They are not willing to jeoperdize that, even if that means not giving the chance to the real truth to come up from the scientific facts.
So, dear scientists, please, tell us what you see. Leave the interpretation to us.

Questions for 'The office alien':

So proof of a 'particular kind of alien life' would confirm truth to at least some tremendous degree otherwise left to speculation? And would simultaneously debunk cetain interpretations of reality as a whole?

Would such an alien be crucified as it were if He dared to reveal Himself and threaten the ambitions of humanity?

Of course, it is impossible to trace how living things were created and to prove if it was by Darwinian evolution or not.

But it is very easy to trace how human-made things are created! And it really strikes me that nowhere in the Internet I see such a tracing! And if one just carefully inspects how one or other complex human-made thing appeared in our world, he (or she) will understand, that no complex artificial thing was created by Intelligent Design.

How was watch created? By a long series of changes and improvements. Could an intelligent person like Aristotle create a mechanical watch? No! Could Leonardo da Vinchi create Boing 747 or Windowx Vista? No! And not because he was not intelligent enough.

When we create something, we need it to be good. Even God did it like that: he checked if what he has created is good or not. But who defines if a newly created thing is good or not? A world, an environment where this thing is going to exist (or just die after its birth).

Design is a way of creating things 'in mind' (or on paper) without actually creating them. It is the way that only humans can use to create things. When we design something, we try to predict if this 'something' will be bad or good, i.e. if it will get a high or a low score by the environment.

But as more complex thing you create, as more unpredictable the environment score will be.

So what we actually can design is a (small) change to already existing things, i.e. things that we know highly-scored by the environment.

You may never create something that never existed and not similar to something and no one has idea of it.

A watch or an airplane or a spaceship could never be created by a single human or by a group of humans 'from scratch', i.e. without having something that was before. A watch was invented by Peter Henlein from Nuremberg about the year 1500. Before that tower clocks driven by weights existed and also small mechanisms driven by mainsprings existed. Peter Henlein connected the two notions: weight-driven clock and mainspring-driven mechanism and created a watch. But could he do it without well knowing what a tower-clock is and what a mechanism is? Of course not!

Could 1,000,000 programmers close themselves for 10 years and create an operating system like Windows Vista? Of course not! It had to pass all the small steps of constant changes and exposure to the market, which would score the changes. And lots of other programs would have to concur for the market.

So, maybe the living organisms on earth were not created by the Genetic Evolution, but all artificial complex things on earth did appear by Evolution.

And any complex thing may appear only as a result of Evolution, which is a trial-and-error, step-by-step changes and after each change a scoring by the environment should be done.

If a thing can be designed, it means that this thing is simple.

Would proof of the existence of other worldly beings support intelligent design? It would diminish religion in some ways however it would support religion in other ways. The bible talks about "angels" in the sky and other references to aliens beings. Does ID talk about alien intervention in human evolution?

I wanted to share what, in my opinion, is the most compelling argument for design bar none, and the one I think must be thouroughly discussed and debated.

C.S. Lewis nails the point when he exhorts us that no science is true unless our thinking about it is first true. That puts philosophy (or logic) ahead of the emperical world in terms authority. Do not misunderstand, I am not a rationalist. The internal and external world must both cohere in order to have a trustworthy truth claim. We should place our faith in nothing less, and as Lewis said elsewhere, reason herself tells us to look beyond her for confirmation. The natural sciences provide quite nicely as confirmation or rebuke for our various 'theo'.

There is no such thing as ‘natural science’ apart from the thinking that founds it. That is it’s foundation. What we can say… is that nature is, from all we can tell, a neutral medium by which to test our philosophical constructs. If that were not so, then neither the naturalist or the theist could say that ’such and such doesn’t fit the evidence.’

We all seem to agree (putting aside the agregiously imaginative New-Agers anyway) that the material world is objective with regard to our theories about it. It is the objective test of our ideas.

We can say that science is the ‘inference to the best explaination’. That is the hallmark of scientific theory, and a founding philosophical principle of the possible accuracy of any science to begin with. There is no escaping philosophical coherence no matter how hard the naturalist tries.

We all know, there was a time when we could not say with any certainty that the universe is ordered in an intelligeable way. Some still hold to that, since we do not understand everything (ie. the quantum realm). But as has been noted by none other than Albert Einstein, ‘God doesn’t play dice’. And I understood he made that remark in the same context...

Logic is the law. We must assume that that is so irrespective of God’s nature (be He/it, an eternal and impersonal material force, or a personal and loving creator). If we do not, then there is no such thing as knowledge since none of us is prepaired to accept incoherence as a legitiamte argument.

Quoting C.S. Lewis again, “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”

No logic = no comprehensibility = no science.

All of this being considered, it is logic that is the foundation of all ‘knowledge’. All meanignful language uses logic, be it mathematics, English, Swahili, or ancient Hebrew.

So language itself is really just logic. We can express it with whatever digital components we like; from whistles, pops, and clicks, to the quaternary digital code of DNA, information is being expressed and delivered from one entity to another in an orderly fashion. And logic comes from intelligence as a matter of empirical observation.

If our thinking is true, then and only then, is empericism true. It then follows that when the two are in agreement, we have the only thing that can be considered scientific. Yet again, the philsophical presupposition is always the dominant force.

This trumpet must be sounded as we march around the city until the walls of honest individuals come down. It is simple… It is irrefutable… And puts us in the ‘actual’ scientific seat.

Internal philosophical coherence + external material coherence = systemic coherence = empirical fact. Call it a triune harmony of two dimensions, creating a third and indivisible spirit of truth between the two...

There is no emperical evidence that methodological naturalism should be the definition of science because it is itself, not an emperical or scientific fact but a philosophical proposition. And it is in this sense self defeating. If, as the current definition goes, the only thing that is scientific, is that which has a material explanation, then by what material explanation is there for that assertion being true?

As I have noted, it is a philosophical belief as is any religion be it theistic, atheistic, polytheistic pantheistic or what have you... All science is philsophical, because all science is assumed to be logical.

Am I beating a dead horse?

Good!

It should therefore be absolutely remarkable to any honest thinker that in the first lines of His gospel, John says, “In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. Without Him, nothing that has been made was made… The Word became flesh and dwelt among us…”

It is the Logos (Word or logic) that ordered the universe.

The only thing that is ultimately even definable as ’scientific’ is ‘The Word’ (which is ultimately just logic). As Lewis so simply and clearly reminds us, if our thoughts (expressed by words) are not valid, then no scientific observation is either.

I am one who agrees that the battle will ultimately be won or lost by the ability for people to communicate this message of philosophical coherence as the ‘real definition of science’. But that assumes people will want to hear it. Many do not, and the political pressures upon those considering it must be emmense.

I firmly believe the proponents of naturalism will pull the rug out from all of us before they allow a design paradigm to once again rule the day. That is a prophecy that I do not personally like, but it has authority greater than my own will to support it. Individual walls will fall… converts will be made. Just not all.

The materialists will, in the end, exalt themselves if the Bible is true.

Science is simply logic (philosophy). The material world can only confirm it’s authority. The material dimension cannot speak… I repeat… it cannot speak… for itself. It needs ‘logic’ (Logos / The Word) to speak for it. It is therefore doomed in any attempt to exalt itself coherently. It will need magicians and mystics to perform such a ritual. As I hinted in the last post, this will not stop many from 'giving appearent life and breath to it’s image' as John wrote in Revelation.

To really overstate my case, the material universe did not create the laws of physics. The laws of physics enable the material universe to be. And the laws themselves are not material entities. The material universe simply obeys them and gives them material legitimacy.

Sir Isaac Newton understood this when he said, “Though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular positions of the orbits themselves from those laws….
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)

Let’s face it… from a childlike sheppard boy named David observing the glory of the heavens, to John polkinhorne the quantum physicist at Cambridge, the appearence of design is base, simple, and logical and yet marvelously complex.

I used to believe the naturalists. And though for me the walls came down slowly, their continued audacity and imposition compels me to vehemently contend for the truth. How can we be so resistent to understand this?

I am an agnostic who does not believe in a personal God, but I do not believe evolution is driven by “natural selection” doing something to a collection of genetic accidents. Why should I have to state that disclaimer? If I am allowed to voice skeptical of RM&NS, shouldn’t religious people enjoy the same privilege?

The only alternative to accidental assembly would be some sort of intelligent, purposeful organization. I, personally, view the organizing intelligence of living systems as perfectly natural force of nature. Other people believe in multiple universes, but I believe in the reality free will and intelligent choice right here in this universe. I see evidence of the ability to make purposeful choices in myself and in other mammals. In fact I see evidence that even single cultured cells have some limited ability to make simple choices and respond creatively. Since I don’t believe in miraculous appearance anything, including intelligence, I believe that organizing intelligence of living systems has always been an aspect of reality. As Shelldrake suggests, the laws of nature are entrenched habits, and universe is in the process of designing itself. The laws that apply to inert matter are so entrenched that deviation is undetectable by our present measuring methods – except perhaps at the quantum level. However living systems are still an observable design in process.

Applying this to evolutionary theory, biological innovations would originate in individual living systems, not their genomes. The genome would be the record of past adaptations; not the origin of new ones. Used organs develop and unused ones atrophy. Individual organisms make limited adaptations to changes in temperature and altitude, learn to utilize new food sources and invent new behaviors during growth and development. Such adaptations are inherited epigenetically, as they develop, and are only incorporated into the genome if persistent over generations. Please don’t tell me Lamarckism was disproved by cutting the tails off of a few generations of mice. No one ever suggested that mutilations might be heritable.

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/ (Questions about materialism)

I have to make a correction to my previous post.

The 'the Game of Life', doesn't prove that without intelligent guidance, such a system cannot come into being.

All it does it prove (emperically) that it can come into being with intelligent guidance.

Very good Anne, I did run a risk in making that assumption. And now the misunderstanding is corrected. I repent of my error.

Please do notice that this was possible between us because of the fact that the words we are using have an objective meaning that we have both conformed to.

However if I were to reject the authority of the word and general authorship, I could interpret your words just as easily to have meant that "you are Paul, and I am you, and we are altogether... Koo-coo-kachoo"!

I firmly believe that most misunderstandings arise not from misunderstandings per se, but from concealed personal bias (concsiously or unconsciously). 'Lucy, or pie in the Sky' declarations of ignorance are not nearly as powerful a debating tool as some believe. Often, it's not that we 'don't know', it's that we don't 'want' to know.

Many people intentionally supress the truth so as to keep the implications as far from the conscious mind as possible. But deep down we know. The gospel of John and Pauls letter to the Romans makes it clear that God has given all men lihgt, and that we supress the truth. It is our nature...

If we let it out, it will grow, and try to lead us further down a road we don't want to go.

There are some conclusions that if we accept them as true, will lead us elsewhere in our lives that we stongly reject regardless of the kind face we may wear on the surface.

Misunderstandings also arise from disagreements as to the definition of the words and concepts we are using. The definition of science is a good example. Again, they are not true misunderstandings in this instance either. It is bias once again.

Our current definition of science (the accepted convention) is called 'Methodological Naturaism'. It says simply that if evidence and theory is to be considered 'scientific', then it must deal exclusively with material (or natural) cause and effect.

The interesting thing, is that MN does not explicitely exclude God or the supernatural as an explanation like 'Ontological Naturalism would'; but; it effectively does so, by presupposing (philosophically) that only material cause and effect is valid.

I mention that it does so 'philosophically', because that definition itself is arrived at, not by emperical or material observation and testing, but by a philosophical bias known as materialism.

Therefore, our current convention of science (methodological naturalism) is not 'scientific' within it's own definition. It is a philosophical worldview; ie. a religious or theological system of metaphysics attempting to impose acceptable parameters for defining reality.

Do you understand what I am saying?

If so, perhaps you disagree?

If not, perhaps you can formulate some questions for me so that, whether we agree or disagree, you will at least understand my position.