Joined: June 2006
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2012,07:20)|
|Gary Gaulin's PDF (version of 2012/11/16):|
We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.
That's your theory's conclusion?
You've suffered an incredible amount of pain for pretty much no gain at all. You've come to a conclusion that nobody has *ever* disputed ("a human is an intelligent designer", modulo that "a human is" should be "some humans are"). That's in the category of "ordinary design" that science as practiced by everybody but you is perfectly fine investigating and elucidating.
That first sentence in the conclusion is arguably OK. There was no need to try to force some sort of "intelligent" framework on every physical process leading up to humans, whether it made any sense or not.
You, however, seem to freight your "theory" with greater significance than the (relatively modest) conclusion offers. You have spoken of justifying "creation science" and "intelligent design" of the sort espoused at the 2005 Kansas State School Board hearings. Example:
Much like Metaphysics where it's OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you.
Your conclusion does not do that, for the simple reason explained in the 2001 Wilkins and Elsberry paper, to wit, that "ordinary design" does not provide justification for "rarefied design" inferences. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design creationism" *require* those "rarefied design" inferences, and thus no "theory" that solely deals with "ordinary design" can be said to support or justify any such thing.
The roll of scientist as your ownself might be is only feasting upon Karl Pooper-style paradigm shifts into third gear while uphill on a tiny rollercoaster, which you're lack of understanding demonstrates, while in Kansas they understand that Creation Science thinks the theory belongs where it is, being honorifically deposed on Planet Sourcecode, which obviously render's you're objections untimely.
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT