Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00260)

In a message dated 3/1/06 4:36:49 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> Well, Intelligent Design is in actuality falsifiable. That is, the centra=
l=20
> postulate or claim in their argument is falsifiable, and indeed is proven=
=20
> false every day.
>=20
How?   Where's the proof?   What is their central postulate that is proven=
=20
falsifiable every day?   What kind of argument is that?   The only thing I=
=20
disagree with is their basic assumption that the intelligence necessary to =
design=20
the universe is outside the cosmos itself and in a personal supernatural=20
"creator" -- who has no causative justification for its separate existence =
-- which=20
brings on an infinite regress, if we ask, where did "He" come from? :-)

Thus, as I see it, the only way the "creationist's" idea of a separate=20
omniscient. omnipotent, and omnipresent God can be easily falsified, is by =
being=20
replaced by the logic of an alternative "intelligent design" process simila=
r to=20
the one explained and described by the ABC theory and model -- that sees th=
e=20
Cosmos as being both conscious and intelligent right from its initial begin=
ning=20
in the zero-point and spinergy of its primal singularity -- which remains=20
intact at the zero-point centers of all its fractally involved coenergetic =
fields,=20
as well as in the consciousness of the ubiquitous zero-points spread out=20
through all its evolutionary sub constructions (including us humans) down t=
o the=20
quantum particles themselves and the infinitely extended coenergetic "vacuu=
m"=20
space between them.=20=20

Isn't our analogous intelligence and ability to use it in the design of eve=
ry=20
possible structure, system or process imaginable by any human beings,=20
sufficient proof of that?   Why should our powers of creation be any differ=
ent from=20
the cosmic powers that created us out of its own substance, and in accord w=
ith=20
its own fundamental laws of phenomenal existence?   Aren't we composed of t=
hat=20
very same substance?   Aren't our intelligently designed structures depende=
nt=20
on those very same laws?   Can our consciousness, will and intelligence,=20
then, be any different from those of the Cosmos?    So, where's a "separate=
 God"=20
in all that?=20

That's the only way that "creationism" can easily be blown into a cocked ha=
t.=20
  All we have to do   is merge such an alternative theory of intelligent=20
design into a new paradigm of physics, scientifically proving it beyond a s=
hadow=20
of a doubt, link it with Darwin's theory of species evolution, and put it a=
ll=20
-- together with the consolidated mathematics of both relativity and quantu=
m=20
physics merged with string theory -- in the new science textbooks.   That w=
ould=20
have nothing to say about a supernatural outside creator.

>  The argument hinges on the claim that information can only be increased =
by=20
> design, and that random mutation cannot accomplish it. The random mutatio=
n=20
> aspect of the argument is a distraction from the central claim, concernin=
g the=20
> increase of information. That part is obviously falsifiable and daily=20
> occurences, at least in some part of the world, and in all parts that hav=
e=20
> refrigerators, which is most everywhere.
>=20
Not relevant.   I consider "intelligent information" such as the knowledge,=
=20
ideas, designs and blueprints needed for the manufacture and assemblage of =
any=20
structure including the universe, as being fundamentally holographic wave=20
interference patterns carried or modulated on the surfaces of electromagnet=
ic=20
fields (in any dimension of space), and accessible to consciousness (awaren=
ess,=20
thought, will, etc.).   So, what does that kind of intelligent "information=
"=20
have to do with dumb refrigeration cycles?   (Unless, we consider that the =
same=20
intelligent process that designed the refrigerator, also designed the unive=
rse=20
and all its parts. :-)

The random mutation idea still is only an unfounded theory that, apparently=
,=20
has been even easier falsified by the expounders of "intelligent design" as=
 a=20
substitute for Darwin's evolution using supposedly scientific arguments. =
=20
Their biggest error is that they can't account for the consciousness of the=
 user=20
of such intelligent information, and have to resort to a supernatural sourc=
e --=20
which then turns their intelligent design into creationism -- that has no=20
valid science of evolution in it at all.=20=20=20

Thus, the major thing wrong with Darwin's theory is chance mutation as the=
=20
trigger for the valid ideas of species evolution and survival of the fittes=
t.=20=20=20
The other problem linked to that, is the so called Darwin tree of life, tha=
t=20
is missing many links between different species stuck on the same branch=20
because of certain similarities in their DNA.   Accordingly, Darwin's evolu=
tionary=20
theory, by itself cannot explain the punctuated nature of evolution, nor ca=
n=20
its followers find such missing links to prove its theory of smooth species=
 to=20
species evolution, or explain the separate yet identical adaptations within=
 a=20
species to similar circumstances and ecosystems in remote locations.   How =
does=20
the supposed mutation of one animal in a species cross over to the same=20
species in a different location?   If we could explain that, we could also =
explain=20
the million monkeys banging on typewriters eventually writing the Encyclope=
dia=20
Brittanica. (That is, if they could live a few billion years or more and ha=
d=20
an equal light year length of paper.:-)=20

As for the change in thermodynamic information produced by a refrigerator..=
.=20
Such change is not accessible to consciousness, and therefore, cannot be us=
ed=20
as an argument about information knowledgeably used for the consciously=20
intelligent design of anything.=20=20=20
>  =A0
>  Taken as an experiment, consider a body of pure water, laminar and=20
> homogeneous. It has a certain degree of information. Now take away enough=
 energy,=20
> just cool it to below 0 degrees centigrade or 32 degrees Fareinheit, and =
ice=20
> forms. That is an increase in information. The increase happened spontane=
ously=20
> once threshold for ice formation was crossed. It did not happen by design=
. Add=20
> enough energy and bubbles form, another increase in information.
>=20
This is a straw-man argument since the information in the water and its=20
changes due to natural causes, has nothing to do with conscious intelligenc=
e --=20
analogous to human ability to intelligently utilize knowledge and, therefor=
e=20
create useful changes in design or structure... Unless you consider the wat=
er=20
itself also as being similarly conscious and intelligent. :-)=20=20=20

Unfortunately, all it can do in such processes of state relative informatio=
n=20
change, is follow natural laws of phase change due to external changes in=20
thermodynamic conditions -- of which it has no consciously directed control=
.=20=20=20
Besides, adding energy to any physical system -- whose condition or state d=
epends=20
on the fundamental laws of electrodynamics and thermodynamics -- to achieve=
 a=20
desirable result requires conscious thought and intent.   Can't our conscio=
us=20
will coupled with an intelligent thought visualization concentrated on an=20
internal or external change of our body state or condition do just that?   =
Could=20
we not call that, "intelligent design" along with "intelligent=20
reconstruction"?=20=20=20

Therefore It appears that your water metaphor, has no reference to evolutio=
n=20
of a species to better fit into a particular environment, or to change towa=
rd=20
a higher goal of intelligence... Although, it might have some relationship =
in=20
the initial evolution of the universe, and its phase changes (such as durin=
g=20
the fractal involution of its coenergetic fields) and their phase changes p=
rior=20
to inflation and symmetry breaking.   But, this doesn't mean those same=20
processes can apply to the further evolution of the living and conscious un=
iverse=20
itself or any of its analogous and similarly living and conscious parts.  =
=20

>  Actually that's what happens in the cosmology of high energy physics. It=
's=20
> called symmetry breaking and as the universe cooled from a high temperatu=
re=20
> with a more or less uniform distribution of fields and particles, to lowe=
r=20
> and lower temperatures, the particle types and forces split over and over=
 again=20
> by the process of spontaneous symmetry breaking, each time achieving a=20
> substantial increase of information without any need for design.
>=20
Another straw-man.   You're talking about changes in physical property=20
information not information related to knowledge required for its intellige=
nt=20
application toward intentional and purposeful changes in intelligent constr=
uction,=20
operation, or processes of any living system.
>  =A0
>  Finally, the process is reversed in a sense with the (probably=20
> spontaneousl) creation of elementary life forms and their development=A0w=
ith energy from=20
> say the sun as input. In this case information is increased by the additi=
on of=20
> energy. Growth of these lifeforms first happens by splitting (RNA), and t=
hen=20
> by birth and death(DNA) and finally a rapid increase in information is=20
> achieved by sexuality, where the DNA of parents are mixed to increase inf=
ormation=20
> generation by generation.
>=20
Total nonsense.   Another straw-man that doesn't account for the source of=
=20
the intelligent code of the DNA in such supposedly spontaneously created li=
fe=20
forms. Where's the evidence that energy from the sun coupled with loose ato=
ms=20
floating in any medium can create anything?   And how do you account for th=
e=20
"spontaneous creation" of elementary life forms -- even if such a process, =
with=20
added high voltage electricity from lightening can assemble or synthesize a=
mino=20
acids, let alone proteins and life forms composed of them -- without first=
=20
explaining where the RNA and DNA came from?=20=20=20
>  =A0
>  Now it is possible to claim in all this that the=A0 RNA and DNA=A0of the=
=20
> universe was by design. But different DNA codes may evolve on different p=
lanets, or=20
> in different galaxies. DNA need not be unique just as the laws of physics=
=20
> need not be unique. But physics tells us that the constants of nature had=
 to be=20
> fine-tuned to produce life. So are the laws of symmetry (i.e., the laws o=
f=20
> physics) and symmetry breaking=A0designed?=A0If so,=A0it probably happene=
d many=20
> generations of universes ago. But that's another story. The evolution of=
=20
> universes from the beginning of time, also Darwinian.=20=20
>=20
Again, nothing more than vague assumptions that can't be verified by simple=
=20
logical cause and effects processes that require organization and pre plann=
ing.=20
  The DNA code is a fundamental and mathematically consistent possibility=20
along with the fractal development of involved coenergetic fields of energy=
 of an=20
analogous electrical nature that radiate -- according to fundamental laws o=
f=20
cycles, symmetry, conservation, and all the other inviolate laws of pure=20
physics -- directly from the spinergy of the zero-point (singularity) of pr=
e cosmic=20
absolute space.   But to put that possibility into a code that can determin=
e=20
the structure of any being, including the universe and all the living being=
s=20
in it, would still require intelligence and willful intent, along with=20
imagination picturing the end design and construction that is to be symboli=
cally=20
modeled in the DNA using that code.=20=20=20

Thus, there is no such thing as a DNA code that "evolves on different plane=
ts=20
-- since that code basis, i.e., the coenergetic field structures of the=20
individual base molecules (but not its intelligent contrivance) is a built =
in given=20
due to the fundamental geometry's and topologies that is inherent in the=20
original spinergy along with the intelligent holographic information it car=
ries in=20
its vibrational wave interference patterns -- out of which everything in th=
e=20
cosmos is constructed intelligently by the consciousness inherent in every=
=20
zero-point center of the initial coenergetic fields originating directly fr=
om the=20
Cosmic singularity down to the zero-point centers of consciousness of the=20
Sun, the Earth and all its structural parts and inhabitants, and their part=
s,=20
etc., ad infinitum.   That is not to say that evolution then doesn't procee=
d=20
without constant intelligent tweaking, but does say that Darwin's theory, a=
s=20
accepted by reductive science, misses the boat by a country mile when such=
=20
evolution is speculated to occur by chance mutation -- that can't show any =
logical chai
n of causality that makes any sense.=20

So, in spite of Dawkins and Dennett, there is no such thing as a blind=20
watchmaker.   Since, if the universe and all its planets and ecosystems can=
 involve=20
in a perfect place and with perfect conditions for mind to be expressed and=
=20
self replicated in highly organized individual beings -- such as us human=20
animals with godlike minds -- the universe must have had access to that col=
lective=20
mind and all its accumulated intelligence and knowledge right from the prim=
al=20
beginning at its singularity.   And, as far as I'm concerned, the logical=20
explanation of the ABC theory, without violating any fundamental scientific=
 laws of=20
nature, proves it logically and philosophically, if not scientifically in=20
accord with its understandable, yet materialistically limited rules.

Leon

>  =A0
>  Richard
> =A0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pabloreyes33 <pabloreyes@hotmail.com>
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:14:08 -0000
> Subject: [Mind and Brain] FASEB opposes using science classes to teach=20
> intelligent design, creationism, an
>=20
> FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design,=20
> creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs Editor's note: The Federati=
on of American=20
> Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has issued a statement support=
ing=20
> evolution and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism=
 in=20
> science classrooms. Supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numero=
us=20
> fields, evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the=20
> biological sciences. The FASEB statement affirms that intelligent design =
and=20
> creationism are not science. These concepts fail to meet the necessary re=
quirements=20
> for legitimate scientific theories: they are not based on direct observat=
ion=20
> or experimentation nor do they generate testable predictions. The Federat=
ion=20
> believes allowing the concepts of intelligent design and creationism into=
 the=20
> science curricula will ultimately impair science education. "Evolution is=
 a=20
> critical topic to science education and is the basis for understanding bi=
ology=20
> and medicine," said FASEB President Bruce R. Bistrian. "The scientific=20
> community must rise to the challenge of defending science education again=
st=20
> initiatives that push for the teaching of creationism and intelligent des=
ign in=20
> classrooms," he said. "To not do so would be a grave disservice to our na=
tion's=20
> students."
>=20
>=20
>=20



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]