Joined: Oct. 2012
The reality is that I have been explaining the most useful scientific models known to cognitive science, while those on a mission to make sure “evolutionary theory” remains the bedrock of biology have to protest.
At least in intelligence related sciences, another variation of the same old (by now) Avida does not even come close to the work found in the Molecular Intelligence Course from Seoul National University. All together the different topics cover what is needed for the self-learning system that meets all the four requirements for molecular intelligence (as operationally defined by its circuit/algorithm). For it to self-learn there must be like David Heiserman showed, environmental sensors addressing a RAM storing motor actions where hedonic system confidence levels control resulting behavior. Kegg database shows the same sensory into RAM system. There is more or less a “trick to it” that the theory exists to explain. Once self-learning begins, there is a very powerful and controlling force born. It is then no surprise that molecular intelligence was able to keep on going through time, achieved current biodiversity. Without that robustness in the system, I doubt it could be such a survivor.
It's best to accept that theories are simply best explanations of how a process works. In this case needing to include behavioral and intelligent causation events in its complete multi-level model made the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically possible. And if that sounds too weird to be true, then you must see:
The Wacky History of Cell Theory - Lauren Royal-Woods
Anywho, science works in mysterious way. There is supposed to be a weird story behind a theory somewhere. So here we are in another crazy moment in time, of science history, the future can look back and laugh at too.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.