Monday, August 22, 2016

A Naturalistic Intelligent Design Morning Thought

The Earth itself is intelligent, righting our wrongs... This, too, is both a Biblical view and view of Biblical proportions. And what Mother Earth cannot do, faith, hope, and love can do in balancing and optomizing matter(s into...

Tuesday, August 16, 2016


The basic unit of intelligence is a pair. That means the fundamental element of intelligence is a spinning bipolar mass attracting mass and energy and some form of secondary weaker linear force interfering with it over time through attraction/expulsion in a non-arbitrary, beneficial manner, or essentially the accumulated summed over the means squared beneficial affects of any such primary and secondary force pair. Example: waves or momentum through space being offset by gravity distortion/waves. Benefits: bent light and an orbit. Second/interfering/basic intelligence forces which serve to repell/deter weakly: light, momentum, magnetism, electricity, reactions, thought... These dual-interacting forces lend direction, or intelligence to mass and space. Everything simple and complex above the quantum level is built on and made more complex by that essentially dialectic principle of momentum being offset by a bias/offset(viz., elemental intelligence): atoms, star systems, systemics, function, health/sickness, repair/breakdown, the tree of life, ideas, institutions, the senses, marriage/divorce. At quantum levels, we only have particle energy and probabilities. A GRADUAL BIAS TOWARDS INTEGRATION IS BUILT INTO EVERYTHING IN NATURE WITH CONTRAVENING DISINTEGRATIONS BEING THE RARE EXCEPTIONS DOWN TO THE ATOMIC LEVEL AS A RESULT - AND THUS INTELLIGENCE, or interference with momentum - makes things more more or less complex - not accidents!!! This is one of the fundamental positions of naturalistic intelligent design - not godless - but naturally assistive to the point of being God-like. SOMETHING SUBTLE, THOUGH DESIGN-ORIENTED ON EARTH WAS AND IS!!

Monday, August 1, 2016


It is staggering to me how many findings in paleontology, genetics, and anthropology have turned up over the past twenty supporting in-species, short-term biological change. This is not evolution in spite of what generalists say. To them, all history and change are labelled in the common vernacular evolution by default. The secular and academic worlds worship naturalistic change only, and they reduce everything to particles and waves to barely (ridiculously sometimes) explain it. Can you imaging reducing love and intelligence to atomic theory or the periodic table of elements (to chemistry alone). Maybe a study of pheromones could hold up and tolerate under such treatment. But oversimplification is what you have to do in order to circumvent the mind, insight, perception, ideas, intelligence and consciousness in all explanations. Of course, the tutelage of God is left out of this even though there is ample physical evidence on Earth to demonstrate a higher being or power physically present and influencing matters here at times. Miracles (written up in the AMA Journal of the American Medical Association and the sky-descending White Hand of God visitations witnessed in vehicular rescues) are numerous and logically sufficient evidence to scientifically support by implication the existence of God or some similar higher power. I will show you how the pieces about man fit together best to currently support the whole book of Genesis. Why wouldn't an inquisitive, knowing person want help with that prospect? You probably won't understand all that I give you now. Don't worry; I am just getting started in deciding how to present all of this. But how about at least learning for the next thirty minutes from someone who took four years full time to study man's origins at the doctoral level and then thirty years to sort through the research findings in order to help settle the matter? Well, Prof. Kurt Wise of Truett McConnell University, the only Young Earth Creationist Baptist university in the U.S., should be the best to do that. He is the most respected creationist in America. Deservingly so. Even the top evolution proponent in the world, Dr. Richard Dawkins, speaks highly of his ability and integrity. Dr. Wise received a Ph.D from Harvard in geology (with a specialty in paleontology) studying under eminent paleontologist and vehement anti-creationist Stephen Gould. All the while, he took classes as a self-admitted Young Earther Creationist student. But like many creationists, he doesn't settle the matter by developing a scientific theory of creation. Wise simply admits when hard pressed that he resolutely ignores some scientific traditions (egs., dating methods; the fossil tree of common descent) in order to believe what the Bible says. This admission is what Dr. Dawkins likes most about him. It confirms Dawkins suspicions about creationists. I don't want to comprehensively overlook any particular group of research findings, because many of our kids can't, and they tend to be quite trusting. They view truth as something more basic and intrinsic to integrity than Biblical correctness. Many of them believe evolutionists cannot all be liars. And that is a fair appraisal to make of evolutionists. You can't be so callous about evolutionary proponents and terse with handling the findings if you want to attend college with an open, honest mind. Many evolutionists are frank in private with colleagues, but follow a rigid, official party line - which is very choreographed and even stereotyped in debate. They simply and critically ignore contrary evidence in public to do so, too. Picking up on this practice is crucial to outcomes in actual debates with them. And I speak from experience; I have written over a million words online in debate with them. I know the difference between supposed evolution, or change in species, and epigenetics, breed changes within one species. You should know about it, too. It is now blatantly obvious from the studies of epigenetics AND Genesis that we sprung from one breed into many races. And not from many species, but from one species. Racial changes are much more rapid and empirically validated than purported, highly rationalized common descent of all species from a one-cell organism (evolution) because you don't want to believe in a god/creator. "However, it is also apparent that morphological and physiological changes can occur in captivity ... Skeletons are also viewed as rigid, genetically defined entities; whereas in reality, they are entirely plastic, responding significantly to behavioral and environmental stimuli." (in Mammalian Review, 2005, Vol. 35, No. 3&4, pp. 215-216) Domestication takes concerted effort and a focus to work its marvelous transformations; nature is seasonal and has no such determination. That's why it doesn't turn up/appear as a cause or empirical independent variable in real-world observations. Vocational entities act in that way - more out of concerted effort than their intelligence per se. Genesis shows such a deliberate family-shaping and molding theme! A multigenerational theme could do it! Whole genes, or linear slices of DNA, rapidly turn on in captivity, but they don't tend to turn off in feral, or returning-to-the-wild species. Many domestication scientists publicly fear zoo animals cannot return to the wild after 200 years of inbreeding. This means, I believe, that genetic drift in the wild is not due to DNA mutations, but likely gene switching. Artificial selection forces are also keen, potent, quickly responsive, physically observable in phenotypic all manifestation (and were in Genesis when the occurred), most potent in captivity. On the other hand, purported natural selection forces (evolution's so-called evolutionary "mechanisms") are almost if not completely non-existent as empirical representations in the wild as observables. Darwinists have to rationalize them to imagine them at work and at play. Also, the latter are incapable of being empirically detected, measured, or even actually seen in action, i.e., while in process. This should not be (in science). It is methodologically due to the absence of any causal features. Artificial or domestication pressures have no such hidden data. Natural selection's mere systemic-functional ties or system lies resulting in great or severe observational handicaps/empirical liabilities can only be suggested expost facto to observation in evolutionists' conclusions and evaluations. Changes are fast in captivity; not the unbelievable creeping-crawling, supposedly environmentally selected mutations that evolution rationalizes after the fact as occuring. Domestication process are different. They are about a plastic species changing DUE TO management in captivity. We represent the pinnacle of biological creatures on this planet, yet we bear all of the anatomical trademarks of pets that came from some household. Now, I know that was more than a mouthful to swallow, but I had to get it out in the open ... Some of these fundamental or basic features coming from individuals and turning into large family/community traits are actually referred to in Genesis, including great differences in body size variation being found in a particular breed (giants vs. dwarfs), body hair differences (hairy Esau vs. virtually hairless Jacob), racial markings and color diversity, along with vocational specialization in very large communities. Those features are now being found and studied in modern man as coming to only one species. That fact should supply much encouragement to the creationist origins position. It should also yield biological insights into the actual processes involved in man as a single species that split into numerous races. His racial features are most likely breed features that have developed like those of human pets, but only to a lesser degree with fewer domestication traces in livestock. Man's recent breed characteristics most closely reflects those of pets, not livestock, tame scavengers, or wild species. Genesis traces are written in our bones and races! Still, building a creationist theory closest to the Genesis story can take nearly lifetime of experience, a lot of professional findings cut and paste, and a very difficult time pondering what arguments to actually apply. Herein lies the value in my approach. I have access to those documents and a piqued interest to check them out. I have been looking. Perhaps many creationists just give up and revert to the Bible-only view of life. In the search for scientific creationist arguments, a lot could fall to time and chance: I was an anthropology doctoral student; whereas Wise was a biologist and geologist. Weaving origins findings together into a theory is difficult, however, until you've by chance hit upon a significant body of anthropological and biological findings that fit together In a cluster so astonishing and ideal so as to exhibit a close match with the Genesis account. It took an anthropologist writing a domestication view of man from New Zealand (the late Peter Wilson in The Domestication of the Human Species) to call my attention to the domestication literature and the scientific fact that it applies to man. He saw the pet and livestock parallel represented in man's bone morphology and racial heritage first; long before I did. I just add a slightly different twist or attribution of cause, more traits to form a super-domestication pet complex (vs. mere breeding/lifestock domestication trait list), and its amazing religious parallels (the details mentioned about the first men found in the Book of Genesis). Genesis, by the way, is a family heritage book more than a human family origins book. It is an introduction history to the races of man, as well. And that is how it so closely matches the fossil record as to be astonishing! The domestication view of man being biologically most like pets and not like livestock in the fossil and other anatomical trace evidence is astonishingly good. My interpretation of its cause is precedent-based, and more so than Wilson's view. My racial origins theory talked about here is predicated on the majority view domestication argument in science, i.e., seeing an intelligent entity at the center of the cause. There is important evidence and precedence here for concluding that. My view is a logical increment away from the traditional application of already-established scientific findings drawn out to a logical conclusion that man's process of domestication was the same as was later used with other domesticated species. In general terms, it says that an entity-domesticator's trade expertise or handiwork was the cause. Now that's as much based on scientific and causal precedence in domestication studies as you can get. Notwithstanding, no academician or scientist at the Ph.D level wants to go so far as to say an entity domesticated man; of course. That would be as much as admitting outright that there is physical evidence for God. But that is precisely the conclusion that animal husbandry and breeds' developments draws us out to. It stands one step away. Domestication implies that artificial selection or a designer's hand is a process continually set in motion us, too, i.e., scientifically speaking, that it leads to different breeds in pets and man. This is not natural selection. There is no detectable or observable natural selection as independent variable or cause coming from the environment; no logical cause; only after-the-fact speculation. Natural selection theory is not predictive. At most, what evolutionists see might be called genetic drift. There is no empirically observable antecedant for it. But random drift is best described by epigenetics, the study of genes that are already present turning on and off; not created by mutated DNA. Epigenetics as such has profound implications for creationism. I think the field is as rich a reservoir of findings as the systemic-functional evidence for designer necessity in cells and organs, i.e., the mainly Baptist-Methodist intelligent design (ID) view couched as a predictive blueprint of life that's implicit in the very structure of DNA and cell formation. ID is also a pretty good, functional view supporting the argument for a Creator. The professional reluctance in academia to admit a biological designer being implicit and precedented in physical, scientific interpretations of life is based on political, career-professional, and job-protection considerations based on an only materialistic view of the world. That didn't work with communism. But academicians still get ostracized by a highly visible, vocal, political, naturalist lobby. An idealist or pure theorist just can have no role to play in science these days unless it is an argument politically in vogue (or he is in cosmology or particle physics - scientific disciplines that are highly theoretical). My view here of there being ample biological trace evidence directly reflecting God's handiwork demonstrates numerous scientific features that closely mirror what is portrayed in the Genesis about early humans and their racial developments. It is more of an argument than a full-blown theory. Yet there is sufficient genetic and anatomical evidence. Giants are explained by breeds (races), as are dwarfs, and the Pigmies of Africa; Cain's Mark is near the top of the list, too; and especially notable is the import and consequences that Cain read into his physically obvious mark. Perhaps it was like former USSR Premier Mikhail Gorbachev's skin mark or Michael Jackson's pigmentation anomaly. If not, it was actually breed difference. The bone and biological distinctiveness of modern man also follows the Genesis storyline and matches its template: settlement and subsistence (work;industry;produce) practices do, for instance, occur only in modern man. Agriculture and pastoralism are limited to modern man also, and developed almost instantaneously in the Genesis account; taxonomic and analytic mental skills, too; cities, nations, industry, and social hierarchies and vocations all resulted and explained by it to a more limited degree. Yet these only appear in modern man in both Genesis and prehistorical evidence. And by now they can all be predicated on fossil (or mineral deposition preserving bone features) evidence found in genes switching on or off! Epigenetics may turn into a great watershed for creationists. Our time as creationists for obtaining government and scientific legitimacy has come, I believe! In addition, Darwin proponents (evolutionists who promote Darwin's natural selection and purely naturalistic common descent model over an intelligent design target, religious model, or even feedback-guided naturalistic one) get frantically enraged upon learning of it. This taught me a lesson. What agitates them most apparently scares them, though they cannot believe that psychological perspective of their reaction could be correct. How so? I think they are so used to hearing Bible verses quoted back to them that they don't know how to react to a new interpretation of their own findings handed them logically on a silvered-findings platter. I've suffered through numerous soul-wrenching personal struggles and flurries of reactionary verbal abuse from evolutionists as they gradually become aware that a creationist is reinterpreting rock solid and crystal-clear (in science) domestication-of-modern-man findings. It's a view in anthropology that was originally presented by the late New Zealand Anthropology Professor Peter Wilson. My addition is extending cause to its most scientifically logical outgrowth and most rational conclusion; I apply evolutionists' most frequent historical precedent and general cause to it. That precedent is that traditional pet and livestock interpretations in domestication focus on an entity (man) as cause. They often become emotionally unhindged while hearing it unravelled in findings-support fashion before them. Their consequent irrational and abrupt shift into a simple and scientifically empty derogation of my own application/position is a blatant tip-off that this explanation of well-documented scientific facts must have struck a nerve somewhere. I think it is an upset in their science, and religious antipathy. But I am only attributing cause just like what they do with other creatures domestication findings. Notwithstanding, I am methodologically well-trained enough in science and statistics to recognize when I'm being dealt a highly emotional snow-blower job, an intellectual rip off, or a cheap academic chop shop when polemically looking right at them. Just hearing for the first time the domestication theory of man by Peter Wilson exploited to its most scientific consistent conclusion of there being a an entity-domesticator for humans, too, as well as for pets and livestock makes most Darwin believers fly into a frantic rage of talking to themselves. They typically become first silent, then ingenuous, and then harshly sarcastic, and after that spiteful - in that precise order. It's like going through shock for them. And that's on one of their good days. This highly animate emotional response sequence is the most telling feature for revealing their switch into a defensive posture and ingenuous intellectual mode. Seeing that irrational process over and over again is another reason why I am presenting this argument publicly. Even if I am wrong and find insufficient support to cite later for some of these details, the thesis and trait package seen in general terms remains valid. It's main thrust is secure, already being supported (though that will now go into hiding, based on evolutional traditional political policy) by many evolutionist. Its just the source and explanation of this trait complex in man as well as pets that will come under fire! They cannot question its parallels in Genesis: giants, races, regional migrations, global impact, cities, armies (huge social organizations), institutions of society, metallurgy, industries/trades and magnificent linguistic and writting recording capacity. These are not found in so-called proto-men. However, after finding this scientifically hidden, theoretical prospect of the reinterpretation of a group of their findings, one still has to contend with Joseph's brothers. You have other creationists' defense responses to fend off or deal with. Most notably, you have to face the cautious constraints that try to keep evangelicals believing ONLY in pat, traditional views as stated in the form of traditional platitudes and people believing only in Bible-derived truth. These people do not believe in science unless it supports what they intuitively believe. The literally interpreted Bible is not the only formidable challenge you have to confront; narrow-mindedness, too. I am a literal Bible believer myself. That is why I am providing this new interpretation from science. But not every tradition-based, literal interpretation is apt or correct, just as not every scientific one is either. Men are men - and I one. What is most important in this area of contention is this, I think: The information I want to present here gets the closest yet I think scientifically to the Genesis account that origins studies and science in academia will logically and methodologically allow currently. And it is VERY close. But not in the way you might think. It has to accept epigenetics (genes switching on and off) and breed/races changing. This is evidenced in Genesis! I think literal-Bible believing people will have no problem accepting the concept of pet breeds and man's races being from the same process. But epigentics put it in the place of DNA mutation changes/evolution may present a problem. I just want to say that it works well in that use. Why? It accurately describes in a scientific manner what must of happened with man in Genesis without using evolution (natural selection, gene flow, mutation, genetic drift, etc., at all). Doing that was the underlying, fundamental research finding and theoretical premise in my search for a scientific Genesis theory here. We have races (righteous "seed," a strange breed, Cain's mark, etc.) mentioning in Genesis, with size-variety exploding into giants as one result, subsistence differences, and interbreeding causing a new human variety (a noble race of giants). We also have very large societies, social stratification, trades, professions, metallurgy, prisons, international travel, well digging, architecture, mathematics, schools, storage facilities, preservation techniques, grainaries, warehouses, cities, armies, nation states, civilization, slavery, and mass warfare. I believe in a worldwide flood around 4,000 years ago. Kurt Wise has the massive and extensive volcanic eruption evidence to support the view of global, mile-high tsumanis then and justify a good explanation for the milder, more spotty pattern of eruptions of volcanoes worldwide since then. And our own Dr. Arlo Moehlenpah of Stockton, CA has presented recent living tree-ring records that go back only that far. That's great scientific evidence for a global flood - in both cases! It makes Darwinists irrate, too. The real emotional challenge is getting them to rationally deal with any findings contrary to their fundamental paradigms of gradualism and naturalism. My domestication of man explanation here is another thorn in the flesh for them. My view as herein described shows that a plethora of scientific, anatomical finds does show what Genesis says. But it only works scientifically because man has the same distinct domestication trace group of features as animals he has affected, i.e., an extensive line or complex of features that trace the development of the domesticated dog, cat, horses, sheep, and pigs. They did not evolve, but developed breedal characteristics as shown in epigenetics instead. Such variety was already built into their species' genes that were turned on or off. However, domesticated species including man have exhibited a great tendency to display varying anatomical features and differentiate significantly within a broad range of the concept/notion of "kinds." Kurt Wise has spent a lifetime looking for research findings that support the traditional 6 twenty-four hour days Young Earth Creation view. I agree with him that man is only 6,000 years old since the geneologies of Adam to Christ leave little room for doubt. YEC people such as Wise believe it could range up to 10,000 years. I don't care about dating; only the processes used to get man to where he is now and where the Bible said he went concern me. Perhaps I am as admittedly blind as Wise, but only when it comes to dating methods of strata and fossils in them. Or maybe I just don't think that's where Genesis' thrust is at all. It's all about origins and the nature of man to me; not choosing between millions or thousands of years. The Bible says "day," not years. That's why I am of the Old Earth Creationist school of belief. I believe man is young (even all evolutionists including the Darwinists admit that - relative to other species); the Earth is old. Wise and Frank Marsh developed the "baramin" or kinds view in the 1990s. That is the creationist taxonomy system I hold to. A baramin is the "kind" of Genesis ranging from a species collectively to a genus. For example, to a YEC and Wise, the lion and tiger are of one feline baramin. Not to me. The horse, donkey, and zebra comprise another. I agree with them on that. Species within the same baramin can all interbreed and produce at least infertile offspring. But somewhere in-between what we know as species and the larger genera lies a vague and almost imperceptible dividing line. It separates species in the past and those of the present that could by interbreeding still produce virile offspring (the traditional, passe' definition of same species). Breeds (races), not species, are what is important to me; they tell us much about Genesis. But classification of kinds (baramins) is still mostly a hypothetical paper exercise currently - even for the best geneticists, evolutionists, and creationists. You can't interbreed genomes on paper or in a computer simulation program (yet). Somewhere in the baramin or Biblical "kinds" lies the answer, however. So Wise and Marsh are onto something and solving problems with their taxonomy. I think I have found the key to where the Genesis cause of the origin of man is: Domesticated trace evidence. Domestication trace evidence is a very distinctive biological pattern that is only present in a particular group of creatures with a very typical experience. It is not present other animals. It is a very rare biological marker in animals, numerically speaking: a complex of features in bone structure and other anatomical features that reflect experience and the processes they developed from - both in their lifetimes and forming multi-generationally into races/breeds. Man did the same. Forensics (the study of deceased bodies) and fossil studies shed scientific light on the Genesis account by focusing on such life-experience and breed-developing traits. How does this relate to man? This is a group of skeletal traits and racial development pattern that shows than man was in a garden or like place - a palace's arborem, zoo, stockade, corral, yard, oasis, farm, or terrarium. It also shows that he lived a captured, restricted, highly controlled existence with a caretaker of comparative superior intelligence and stature, and in a long-lasting relationship. That is because it can very convincing be argued before high schoolers that humans are MOST LIKE dogs, cats, sheep, and pigs in their most recently acquired breedal traits. I have the trait list to support it and back up that as the best view!! The following goal was stated in the Genesis account: God gave man a purpose to take "dominion." He was told that he would rule over the rest of creation (which was lowered in its scope or extent in the curse after his fall). The domesticated trait package he has is formidable and enlightening in this sense. It means he was shaped in the image God had in his mind. This trait complex in domesticated animals and is a big deal - of great scientific import and Biblical significance to the origin of man! Also shedding light on man's origins - the earliest fossils of modern man are found in the Israel; almost double the age of the earliest ones found in Ethiopia. These factors collectively place his origins in what the Book of Genesis calls a garden of sorts in the Near East Crescent. The science of domestication studies now backs the Biblical view up, though no one yet has written about it as God-controlled. The anti-religious scientists I have dealt with arbitrarily substitute culture for this grand knight in only the case of modern man to avoid discussions about God doing the domestication in His image (design intent, plan, or imagination). Yet man is put at center of the focus in all other full domestication scientific cases, and not his culture. The quirkish, experimental preferences of a series of caretaker individuals are the cause, in fact! Of all things! How scientifically unprecedented and small-minded/bigoted to make an ennobled savage exception of man in stark contrast to all other fully domesticated creatures able to live in a domestic, social setting! We are almost godlike if not just God-appointed (all-pervading and all-encompassing our environs) in our dominion over this Earth, yet no domesticated breed has ever made itself before man or without man. Why should man's own origin be viewed as a scientific anomaly? Isn't science supposed to be consistent in its explanations? The answer of why a domesticator is not included in the origins of modern man is anti-religious bias. Worship of man in the form of humanism or as the noble savage is why. But such an idealistic and romanticized view of man's role to exalt/lift up himself in the past as epitomized best in Levi-Strauss' The Savage Mind is scientifically passe'! Most evolutionists say culture or living in large groups did it. I don't. I think the biology as outlined in the Book of Genesis did!! This distinct package of garden-variety or derived/raised/grown bone and racially diverse biological traits can best be described as a designer's palette of personal selection opportunites. Species rate notoriously as mailable/flexible breed selection options and opportunities in captivity (but not in the wild), though also quite prototypical (general-type fixed or core-centered) in terms of what produces virile young. Domestication changes happen much, much faster than purported evolution of species. Domestication traces in man as well as pets and livestock taken as an interlocking complex show a potent process of intensive, intelligent selection at work: resulting in trace evidence features not found biologically in the wild. In man's case, it is not even in preceding modern-man-like forms such as Cro-Magnon man, Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo habilis, or Homo erectus! This could be the creationist's answer to evolution in general! This I think is a revolutionary and phenomenal scientific discovery. It resets the scientific clock back to the Biblical view in Genesis on the subject of man's origins! Darwinian natural selection was not and is not at work in the creation of modern man! This is what the biological domestication evidence on man's origins as initially and too succinctly portrayed by Prof. Peter Wilson shows. He attributed the trait complex in man to sedentary or only domicile living. That is making an exception in domestication studies of man; not working from a logical, historical extension of cause as an entity as universally attributed in other domestication studies, but from outside the discipline, i.e., an anti-religious, naturalistic tradition-only based view of man. Anthropologists must always professionally place culture in the role/place of God lording over matters. So man led at least a corralled, protected existence by a benefactor of regal standing controlling his life at first. In these last days, God's presence has returned in the form of influence has returned of Christ and His Spirit to complete this highly selective, artificially (mentally orchestrated), kingly process of perfecting man. The listed species above are fossils of real animals that our children as students have to bicker over with evolutionists as being pre-human/proto-human. Certain facts from domestication studies could help us understand the scientific origins of man and the Bible a little better. For instance, modern man is the only Homo or man-like animal/form to have spread globally, reflecting considerably superior intelligence, technology, and social complexity compared to any creatures coming before him and/or looking like him. This is remarkable. No other single species has such global distribution and artificially induced biological variability - able to fill nearly any environmental niche and intellectually and technologically adapt to any condition / even the barreness outer space. I just saw another Japanese astronaut take off this morning for the International Space Station! How appropriate: from the most domesticated race of man, biologically speaking! Man's expansive distributional march across the globe was unstoppable given his physical and intellectual trait package. And the evidence show it was selected by a Domesticator. Also, modern man has agriculture (started with Cain in the Bible) and animal husbandry/pastoralism (with Able in Genesis). It precipitated Cain’s jealousy and assault. There is no need to question this. Homo species before man did not and could not achieve agriculture. They didn't have the technology, social complexity, or linguistic sophistication for it. In addition, we also have much more gracile/soft contour bone features (most typically reflected in the smooth bone transitions at the edges, currently in their most pronounced form in Asians – Asians are the most domesticated having little body hair, smooth bone edges, reduced size and skull features). We are also multi-breeds/races (smoothed bone-feature contours, diverse hair and skin colors not found in the wild or in hunting/gathering man-like species at all before Adam). This feature comes in domestication from God or man shaping forms either consciously or unconsciously in his own image (preplanning; imagination), not from society or cultural mores. Individuals did this including aesthetics and desired fumctions as goals. Racial features are not found in wild/undomesticated creatures, i.e., creatures not raised in captivity or similar circumstances. A sampling of one or two domesticated features are found in tame, human-tolerant scavenging species. Dog, cat, sheep, and pig breeds have this intense, many-featured domestication complex. They were raised under intensely controlled conditions of captivity and manipulation. Modern man evidently, scientifically-speaking according to trace features, was, too. He has many biological traits or features/traces showing he was raised the same or a very similar (not noticeably different scientifically) manner. Asians have lost most body hair just like domesticated pigs and some breeds of dogs have. It is unlikely that culture caused this in man because caretaker preferences for the most part caused it in domesticated animals, not enculturation, socialization, or social mores. They were more personal knowledge and preferences with some selective purpose or end goal in mind. So with man. Let's look at some more super-domestication trait features not found in the wild species (and best typified by man, dog, cats, sheep, and pigs). These very domesticated species display less sexual dimorphism (the feature of marked physical differences between the genders - esp. shown by the absence of heavy skeletal edges and bony protuberances) and reduced head/cranium size compared to any foregoing, wild, similar-resembling species. It’s like they’ve all been skeletally remolded from the wild into a softer, smaller, more variable, graceful form. After this, pigmy and giant breeds appear. The same was true in man. The former is in Homo florensis. The latter are in Genesis, Joshua, Genesis, and other historical accounts. The skull and brain are smaller in modern man than any preceding, similar forms, but like Einsteinwas, the latter are more intelligent and socially-technically superior. (In man, this is especially the case when comparing to the directly preceding Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man.) Their social abilities, group size, hunting patterns and toolkits were inferior! This shows there was no direct common descent coming from the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man to modern man. Instead, it took a Domesticator to get involved, just as it did with other intensely domesticated animals. A domesticator is caretaker-captor, a manager and shaper of lives and generations who is in close and intense control. They much more intelligent so as to be protective of them from wild conditions and selective in their breeding partners. There is strong indications in Genesis that the first families of modern humans were managed in this way. Such captivity and micro-management is why these animals are called domesticated species. Man was raised (micro-managed) in a similar way to dogs, cats, pigs, and sheep. His biological traits reveal this. I believe the trace evidence show it was an intelligence directly at work, our Creator, our own intelligent Domesticator – just as there has always been in the development of other domesticated species. Man should be no exception. It is simply on the basis of an adore of nature and worship of godless naturalism that a super intelligence as in the case of dogs and cats, etc., is not considered .He is the first cause in everything. Here is the central scientific truth of the man-origins matter: Man was in God’s image, made under similar biological conditions that can be traced in modern dogs, sheep, and cats. Many of their refined physical traits do not resemble the crude, non-distinctive features borne by any wild species. We still bear the complex of traits that is the domestication footprint – God's handiwork stamp or fingerprint. Then, after being shaped in God's image, we proceeded in similar manner to create our own breeds from the models of wild species in our own, not God's image. The process/trace package is there to prove it! Man was raised under controlled conditions to fit some superio's authoritarian goal and own imaginative purpose, artificial and unnatural a mental notion! Natural selection was not involved or even on the mix. Superior, aesthetic, controlling images are! The bible inasmuch as says this in Genesis, too. Modern man also show a broad range in overall body size and height much larger than in the wild varying from dwarf and pygmy size (Homo foresiensis) to giants with six fingers and toes (as no other creature other than a domesticated animals has). This great size variation is due to domestication/animal husbandry and is best known to the public as occurring in the form of large and very small dog breeds. Only modern men had and have cities, too (as was mentioned throughout Genesis). City origins as well as human origins are found in the Near East. This is significant. Only modern man had the intelligence to develop highly complex and extensive social orders and the extensive agriculture, sanitation, and irrigation needed to support the development of cities with populations numbering over 20,000 people. Paleontologists, biologists, geneticists, and anthropologists considered all the above domestication traits to be racial or breed differences 30 years ago in one much larger and longer-lasting Homo species before, but now are starting to conclude the distinctive package is in a much smaller group, only in modern man, with a much shorter history. They go so far now as to say that modern man is a linguistically separate (Chomsky, Bickerman, and Phil Lieberman at Wash. U.), physically distinct, revolutionary new species, but they won’t admit that a domesticator Was at work – since it reveals a God in existence and involved. But with all other domesticated species, a Godlike species in control was the case in their development, and it is shown in their bone structure traces. Why would man be treated differently as to the first cause of his biological domestication process? Ans., Only anti-religious bigotry. Creationists now have the biological trace evidence and are consistent in their handling of explanations of it consistent with other heavily domesticated species (vs. wild species traits and distributions). . I think discovering and reporting these facts about man’s Domesticator-derived origins, i.e., shaped by the hand of God, is on par with the Star of David/Bethlehem planet-alignment reinterpretation of 40 years ago for Christianity. Similarly, it is also based on new scientific discoveries applied to and paired up with an incident or incidents in the Bible narrative or storyline. I think man growing up in the yard of a palace, dwelling, or similar (the worldwide typical niche for domesticated dogs and cats) best explains modern man's existence - at least in terms of his very distinctive structural form including bone modeling/morphology. Domestication (captivity) and forensic (grave/cemetery tissue and bone markers) actually trace such situations and environments as reflected in the bones of breeds (races) – even typical events in the life of one individual – accumulated in just in one generation. If they are a farmer or husbandman/shepherd, it is revealed in their bones through observation after death and even in fossilization. In the near future, we may find that pelvis bones and upper leg joints (in the groin/loin region) reflect in lifestyle-bone forensics that hunter/gathers sat squat with the ground as Asians tend to do to this day, and that western modern men sat on seats and stools (with the implication being covered dwellings). That would be the next place to look for these markers in bone in relation to man's origin, I think. The point of this is that science does back up the Genesis story of man’s creation and family progress. He is different and superior in many respects to any creature God put on this Earth - in both records. Science is only recently coming around to that view. (Science is slow; domestication is not - relatively speaking.) We can even tell much about current people’s lives and daily habits by just looking at their bones using a Ct scan - just as much as we can the first anatomically modern humans uncovered in the Near East. We can trace events in Genesis; the record/story/trace is also written in their bones! Genesis teaches us that a captivating God watches over and improves a family, their lives, their fortunes, their values, and their bodies! A family directed and at times controlled by God is one major theme of Genesis. Genesis is the Book about God's household; God's family - foremost. Our ministers and children need to understand what discoveries scientists are holding back/hiding from us (but appearing in their professional journals) due to the discoveries’ similarity with the Bible and traditional Christian beliefs. This withholding is most likely being unconsciously done due to a shared prejudice/group standard among the evolutionists in America. I have debated them to the tune of a million words. The spite creationists receive from them is most likely due to their competition with and hatred of religion in general. Ministers and children alike need to know why men ought to be convinced with certainty nowadays in the accuracy of the message of Genesis and the Bible in general as Christians are presenting them. That is why I have attempted to make clear in scientific terms a clarification of some of Genesis features and human family origins in this position paper. If we are to characterize Adam's instantaneously created features as they were intended to be revealed in his bones and later racial developments in Genesis, this is how it looks and worked during the time of Genesis. This is perhaps a novel Biblical interpretation of the theme of races. But races are the same as breeds, and that is an old biological story shown more or less in many domesticated creatures. Or, this could be only a restatement of someone's old family position. In Genesis, this thesis maintains that some entity (which we'll call God for now) controlled marriages, family interbreeding, subsistence, locations, migrations, and resource access. It's about as good a thesis as saying man, domiciles, or material culture caused them by blindsiding selection. There are also the convincing signs/markers for all of this. Man was a pet. All markers of artificial selection, management, and control are there. So it doesn't really matter what we characterize it generally as at this level; for what shows most is the historical and physical trace evidence of selective actions done aforetimes. It is reflected in BOTH the Genesis narrative and the biological traces. At minimum,it is indeed a modern biological fact. The physical or idealistic import of intelligence shown in selection is the only real remaining mystery. WAS IT CAUSED BY AN ENTITY OR NOT? All other artificial selection is! It is also a multidisciplinary description of the trace evidence as it relates to the science, story, and process of racial beginnings that is shown here. It that can be found in evidence abundantly in Genesis narrative form; in bones sufficiently; not just a thematic form in the Book of Genesis. Genesis is a story of racial developments. It is also a story that is shown in our formative biology. And that is a central point for Christianity. It certainly shows us a wonderful religious AND scientific lesson: You really can't get away from the family influence, connections, and ultimate control of God. Breed diversity is what we began with and have always had since we came in contact with a higher entity or power, needed for protection to cause racial diversity. God's provision and direction are in his life-management change. Let's wax poetic here if not simply a bit religious as cosmology and astrophysics does: In it and through it we were born, reared and bred. That is the premier message of Genesis. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being..." (Acts 17: 28). Our racial developments are not completely over yet, so to speak. We as a people are intended for more. The rest of the Bible and some of science teach us that. That God will make a new breed out of mankind again is foretold and well-precedented, too. And in eternal life, we can all be included in the bodily change. He beckons to us to transform us yet again: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2 God is at the center of all of His family's changes. He is the God of all races and breeds; of all of life and times. We are on the journey of a lifetime. He is our Father and our intended destination. Genesis teaches us this lesson more than once, and it is written very well. It is written in His Word as well as inscribed on our hearts. It is even written within the message of our skin and bones.

Monday, November 28, 2011


This theory is based on the Genesis chapter 3 creation story, but not chapter 1.

Basis in principle/rule: Most myths are based on some real-world identifiable element/kernel of truth.

Creation Myth Basis: Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve- Perhaps it was something more a environmentally controlled dome or an open corral. Maybe Eve wasn't LUCY, but Adam WAS Tarzan.

Falsifiable Hypothesis: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and maybe the later Australopithecines were in a partially zoo-llke, or some other semi-controlled environmental setting. Traits were selected for there through intelligent intervention. This and not culture resulted in the development of multiple subspecies and even species changes that included readily identifiable domestication traits such as increases in gracile features in morphology.

Predicted Evidence Pro.: H. s.n. -> H.s.s. subspecies changes are domestication traits. They are the result of domestication. So might also many A.r. -> A. a. changes be. Homo sapiens sapiens have numerous traits in evidence that can best be attributed to the effects of domestication. They resulted from artificial selection and not natural selection.

Projected Evidence Con: Homo s. s. has no domestication traits, but natural selection-only affected traits. Any morphological features that look like ones they might be attributable to effects of artificial selection can be better attributed to effects of culture and the development of large groups instead.

Nonhominid primate control group: baboons or rhesus monkeys.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

How Would You Like to Test REAL-WORLD ID HYPOTHESES Using a Publicly Accessible Database?

The following ID hypotheses were originally produced to supply candidates for a testable ID hypothesis consideration on at a time when the possibility of writing such hypothesis was a matter of heated contention. Even a rudimentary, provisional ID hypothesis test if empirical would allow scientists to at least look more closely at the potential theoretical import of ID arguments, for eg., the possibility of drawing explanatory inferences from real-world data. Anybody want to do so? As I am a proponent of ID trained in scientific methodology and am convinced that such is possible, I sought out such hypothesis for doing simple tests like those done in SETI. I can tell you how to do this.

The database providing usable evidence for testing these ID hypotheses is readily available to the public. It can be found on the internet. Check for it at NASA. The data come in the form of a chart posted as some initial results of the Kepler telescope team's exoplanet survey. They cover only the first six months of the survey and so come from a few years back, but they still provide extensive data suitable for analysis and useful in this connection. Now wouldn't that make a nice science fair project?

Where do you go to look for the pertinent data? Check out planetary descriptions of planets in habitable zones around nearby stars. There are over 50 of them listed in the original Kepler telescope survey! Yes, potential life-producing planets have been found around nearby stars. I will give the links to some sources soon, but the database I am talking about here can be easily found simply by doing a Google search on the Kepler exoplanet survey.

Looking closely at the differences between planets located inside and outside liquid water-temperature habitable zones of stars and to popularize such a comparison as a viable ID research project is the matter of concern for me here at this time. The concept reminds me of SETI. SETI used statistical inference to examine radio signals coming primarily from outside our solar system. The goal was to detect anything that might reflect a pattern of intelligent repetition or modulation in radio signals coming from beyond our solar system. A very sensitive and highly directional antenna was used for this purpose.

SETI was never considered a religious or supernatural activity. (Times have changed. The same mathematical and statistical indicators used in SETI when applied to ID detection get held in contempt by some scientists, due to their belief that the examination gets 'contaminated' outright by religious interests.) The processes of forming and parking life-bearing planets are indeed worthy questions for scientific exploration. Examining the location and makeup of planets existing in and out of habitable zones are surely as important a scientific concern as listening to the radio for signs of intelligent activity. Would you rather be all eyes or all ears as a scientist, if given the choice? Which would be better for doing a scientific exploration for the existence of aliens (or none)- removing scientific blindness or deafness- or wrestling with religious bigotry in academia?

I believe there are many other testable ID hypotheses that are possible, though most evolutionists I have spoken with state unequivocally and categorically that there can be none. That's rather closed-minded, I think. Only one is needed to show otherwise, and that was originally my whole point. Provisional case exemplification and assertion-nullification were my primary goals for bringing the matter up at the time (when I first mentioned it); not to publish a paper about it or to demonstrate that I am a cosmologist. I most certainly am not the latter.

The simplest hypothesis here would be a check on the percentage of exoplanets in habitable zones versus adjacent to them. The next would add size/weight(gravity) of the planet concerned, i.e., midrange, Earth/Mars-like versus moon/Mercury-like or Jupiter-like. An associated consideration was a prediction that high-gravity (large planets in general) and other planets holding environments hostile to the development and differentiation of life AS WE KNOW IT (gas giants and planetoids being only two examples of this) might typically fall outside the habitable zone, and ID explanations for this. However, the evolutionists on Amazon.books I discussed this matter with appear to believe that life can exist on most planets and moons in our solar system (and believe this based on negligible scientific data taken from very hostile environments on Earth). However, they have no real scientific evidence of life living beyond Earth or Mars, i.e., on very small or large planets, or beyond our sun's own habitable zone. What has already been documented as life existing on a celestial body must be the basis for actual scientific comparison in this hypothesis test, not scientific conjecture.

A lot of observations and math that relate to such an investigation have already been performed for you by NASA personnel. They must get cited and be thanked for this. However, an investigator does not have to empirically define or measure habitable zone around any star, only critically ponder and correctly interpret what it means with reference to this projected study. Indeed, this determination has already has been made for us: The habitable zone is typically defined for every applicable star once a planet is discovered; sometimes, it appears, before such discoveries are made.

I am of the opinion that something less than a god or gods is/was involved in doing design. Perhaps a whole pantheon of participants operated in more or less chorus fashion advancing a somewhat inscrutable purpose(s). I think a lot of naturalistic processes were involved, too. To me, these factors would explain the waste and mistakes in evidence among the results of design.

I also don't hold or seek to pursue any 'unitary' view on life that might lend cohesion to such disparate views (and to multiple levels). That is undoubtedly one source of the ambiguity in some of what I write. And I don't care much about remaining consistent from a philosophical or personal point of view; basically only from a scientific and paradigm perspective.

I've been pouring over habitable zone hypotheses in the back of my head like wire puzzles. I thus have a third habitable planet hypothesis. It is the most complete one yet encompassing my thoughts about star system design, however:

ID HYPOTHESIS: Size and mass of planets orbiting stars possessing a habitable zone are correlated with distance from the star in ways that maximize the potential for the proliferation of life as we know and observe it, but are not so correlated in stars lacking habitable zones and stars possessing no planets in their habitable zones.

Now this one directly addresses the need of discriminating design, purpose, and guidance as distinct from the typical patterns seen in natural processes, i.e., the hardest issue/catch to make- in my opinion. Hopefully it will take a step in the right direction by adding a control (group) for ID vs. natural processes, i.e., a comparison to stars lacking habitable zones and stars completely lacking planets in their habitable zones. That's about it...

Why not just count planets in and out of the habitable zone for comparison to be simple? Or how about something more like the quasi-anthropocentric "Stars with habitable zones (will) have more planets close to them- improving the chances for a proliferation of life in the universe" then? (re: planet distribution)

Or, even the more direct, though simple and innocuous "Stars with habitable zones (will) have more planets- providing more opportunities for life to develop in the universe"? (re: planet frequency/incidence)

Indeed, in my second habitable zone hypothesis just mentioned above, I have been essentially assuming (if looked at overall, using simple terms) that the designer(s) like planets and prefer multi-planet star systems.

I say 'essentially,' because that varies from my own concept of a designer slightly. It seems somewhat limited in scope and a little anthropocentric. That is to say, isn't it a psychological reference/emotive appeal to the feature of motive only? Then are we to assume then that designer(s) cannot be robot-like/emotionally detached or even slow moving/amoeba-like in operation? I have no qualms about using the term of 'preference' in all references to this area, though I admit this selection may be partisan and somewhat arbitrary; I see rational drive in self-aware creatures more in terms of a goal or purpose, i.e., in keeping with classical teleology.

Then again, why quibble over terms with evolutionists here? Drawing fine distinctions at this point in an investigation is likely to wind up an exercise in futility/trivia. In some versions of the hypothesis I mentioned, the outgrowth of making assumptions about designer(s)' preferences/ purpose is more particular and complex. These versions predict (more) specialized patterns of planetary location/distribution/or size in stars that have habitable zones in contrast to a random or naturally predictible distribution of the same features around stars having none, I think without resort to natural selection. They are intended to reflect that designer(s) preferred certain locations, sizes, and/or kinds of planets, and not merely more planets.

Could it be that the designer(s) simply prefer more planets, thus putting more of them in habitable zones, or even more of them in any location around stars that have habitable zones? That seems like the most basic place to start. However, can natural forces indeed not do such things? Indeed, the fact that such has even been done has not yet been determined. These questions must first be addressed. Yet, can we know these matters with sufficient degree of logical and inductive certainty at this time? I think these are intriguing questions. Since they are at basic levels of the inquiry, they would be good places to start.

I haven't yet considered size of the habitable zone as a variable. Size and spectral output of the stars might also interact with the above projected relationship(s). What about possible outliers such as very large (eg., white giant) and very weak (eg., red dwarf) stars? Could the habitable zone (or its size) serve as a control for the effects of star size and radiation characteristics, or should the latter factors be instead considered as additional independent variables? I haven't even considered what would constitute realiable types of stars in terms of radiation characteristics for the purposes of generating life and sustaining biological progression on a planet.

I think the general null is reflected at least to some degree in the following considerations: Could life-promoting confluences of habitable zones and propitious planetary number/distribution/size be only random occurrences, or patterns resulting from the operation of natural phenomena alone? Assuming only natural factors, could the same, possibly a third natural phenomena such as the particular type of star (or its size, development, history, etc.) provide star systems with both habitable zones and quantitatively more planets (or, alternatively, qualitatively more potential life-producing planets)? That is, could the latter two dependent phenomena be caused by an as-yet unidentified third naturally occurring factor? Then again, what would the discovery of purely random or star-type-only correlated planetary distributions suggest about ID theory in this area?

As you can see, I am still talking about several alternative variables as options for this study. For instance, I am assuming that more planets in the habitable zone would reflect design only if we could rule out appropriate naturally influencing factors, or alternatively, that a complex, life-propitious pattern of size or distribution of planets around candidate\habitable zone stars could logically be only due to design. More likely, the results will provide uncorrelated findings, the failure to reach levels of statistical significance, or provide only hints about possible real causes.

I believe a good first step would be to focus and refine the hypothesis to be investigated. That is what I have been exploring here for the most part. In the more complex versions of the proposed hypothesis, if I am not able to describe all potential causal factors well (in your analogy perhaps: the features of the lake, island proximity, local and surrounding geology,and area features), i.e., whatever conditions that give rise to habitable zones (star type, distance from star, emitted spectrum, etc.) and affect planet number/distribution/or size, I'm going to need a lot of descriptive data on planets lying outside of habitable zones or around stars having no habitable zones. If that is so, then at this time, at the start, with little descriptive data to go on and only a basic understanding to build on, wouldn't a simpler form of the hypothesis would be better?

In all of this, we should not lose track of the overall goal of trying to discover whether there more independently generated life-favoring factors present in habitable zones than in regions outside of them, and then, discovering whether such should be explained by something other than natural forces alone, i.e., not dependent on fluctuations in natural phenomena or the operation of random factors.

To that more basic and general end, wouldn't simpler forms of the hypothesis be preferable now? Here is yet another example of such: Stars with habitable zones will have a larger number of planets and their orbits will be closer together in habitable zones than adjacent to such zones. However, wouldn't even this version be a little too complex at present to count as a good starting point for launching such an investigation?

Want to help test a real-world ID hypothesis using public domain astronomical data? Get in contact with me and let's discuss the possibilities.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

What Biological, Functional Realities Support ID Theory?

Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" lucidly covers several of these. Here I will provide several overall conclusions of my own on the subject:

We cannot perceive function without at least rudimentary intelligence. Is that a more basic activity than enacting or adapting a function? Probably so. Detection and identification are likely a magnitude of order simpler than systems creation and startup. Thus more complex systemic activities like sensory feedback, information application/enhancement, and enlisting/prescribing of functions are likely prerequisites for evolution to occur.

I differ some with Stephen Meyer some: Memory, i.e., backpropagated feedback or recursive import/impetus from other events, could supply directional bias though admittedly not the original information framework needed for upwardly complex as opposed to cycling biological progress. Without it, new information arrives in a meaningless manner as countless windfalls from 'nowhere'. We also see the routine arrival of statistically improbable fortuitous twists thru repeated functional confluences in the fossil record- in the form of elaborately enhanced, intricately applied new information. Is upward impetus or a dreamy-eyed catalyst at work?

On the other hand, multiple outcomes and survivor bias chained together with every conceivable possibility played out through innumerable, branching realities would create multiple and some very special universes. We have no framework for tracing all finite possibilities yet, so theory involving such multiverses remains more metaphysical than ID and evolution. In a strictly sequential cause-effect universe, you can only get ever increasing complex functions by the interaction of useful developments or experience in some form of information feedback loop, not through accumulative incremental change alone, since functions are network-constrained, systemic solutions.

One profound ID finding: 3.5 billion years isn't enough biological time; it's either ID, or evolution in the multi-universe sense. So, does the mind envisaged in ID evoke a sense of timelessness, or does evolution have a mind of its own?

Has Science Been Sheltering Evolutionary Theory?

Proper tact should come as second nature to any avid hypothesis tester. For one, I wouldn't mix in astringent discounters in debate with surface commentary. For eg., I often read evolutionists writing, "There are no ID hypotheses." Also, statements such as "There is no ID theory, period" litter anti-ID comments. What amounts to the drumhead approach is simply bombastic, overbearing, and uni-disciplinary. It could even be shooting one's ability to extrapolate discussions in the foot. This is because uses of the term theory are varied in science, applied to even propositional explanations and low-level modeling. This is seen to all but undergraduates. Narrowly circumscribing theory for intelligent design is uncalled for. I see it as some what (sic)- basically a smear issued out of creationist spite!

Evolutionists are being so parochial without being religious! They are getting blind-sided, shooting their own intellectual scientific efforts in the foot. Theory and hypothesis testing should be what science is about, not the worship and exploitation of naturalism!

Now let's get down to business: ID is teleology, not theology. Someone can't spell. It is no more theology than evolution is metaphysics; yet, ID is less esoteric. It firmly clings to technical distinctions drawn into its argument; formal definitions are an integral part of its logic and organization. Most ID critics on A. Books avoid such vigorous incisiveness. In the strictest sense, historically speaking, macroevolution explanations typically use analogy for logical support, since assertions often go untested, at least in terms of the foundational scientific exercise of hypothesis testing.

My claim here is not that evolution lacks evidence. Relatively small changes have been observed, but that's like constructing a web by pl(a)ying with LEGOs. Nothing comparable to the level of the fossil record's tree and branches results; just a crude outline. It's my blue Jeans (depressed single mothers, deploring missing 'Gene') hypothesis. It's also the paleontologist's view versus the geneticist's.

Shall we be so cheeky as to equivocate purpose with motive to speak of lies? "No evidence!" and "No theory!" then are among the evolutionist's best: weak arguments prompted by blissful ignorance, willful blindness, and myopic impudence. More professional and honest would be any tempered extreme, for eg., "There's always evidence, just not good evidence."

Evolution shows evidence of being old and crusty as a theoretical construct. It is broad and general enough to warrant ever more diverse elaborations and extensions. Even lay persons toy with it, manipulating it in linguistic use as a concept, analogy, and rubric. And its scientific feature set has been significantly altered over the years. The last point is actually voicing alarm, not criticism; the next point is a criticism, however: Evolution is often used exclusively as a thesis (as it is used in history) in technical and scientific writing, and in this manner it has seen much more application than as a theoretical tutor or judge for hypothesis testing. I am talking about the social sciences; here it is being used as a thesis for packaging research, not as a theory guiding it. It has waxed into a more generalized concept referring to broadly construed developmental changes of any type and nearly waned into household cliche', losing some logical distinctiveness and linguistic usefulness along the way. Hasn't history demonstrated a less grand unified theory would be more scientific-better for hypothesis testing? Like esoteric Marxist theory, has it no operationalized models or theorems to test?

I classify evolution as a pattern theory based on the way it receives anecdotal inclusion in scientific research reports. With metaphors and analogues arrived at for illustrative purposes after the data has been gathered, it is often used to paint findings, not guide them in an exercise of what to look for and how to interpret it-used in tandem. Causal-oriented models demonstrate a more continuous reference to theory at least in my experience. The notion of cause itself is a more direct premise, constituting a flow line demonstrated throughout the conduct of research and shown in the activity of report writing!

I think ideological and conceptual developments made to the theory of evolution subsequent to Darwin carried us askance from causal inference instead of towards it embracingly in the social sciences. What of the physical sciences?

Evolutionary theory has been subjected to remarkable sequential revisions. And these changes include rather drastic alterations and additions made to the internal mechanisms of the theory. Every 30 years or so, evolution gets a make-over of dramatic revisions to correct what I maintain are long-forestalled corrections to its categorically denied flaws. Changing it's name would allay a host of problems. Evolution's updates are to the point now that the theory does not appear or function as evolution in the classical Darwinian sense any more, except to its single-minded idealistic luminaries: neonates, loyalists, and antiquaries.

No wonder ID proponents and others have taken issue with certain aspects of the original theory as well as these subsequent updates! Using typical evolutionists' after-the-fact logic, ID gets blamed for its inadequacies in 'blame the critic for all the town's ills' fashion and gets farmed out as religion. It's happening protect established positions and leaders or to maintain the initial placard of bigotry set out typically by wider society against newcomers and outsiders in America.

Discount ID's criticisms of evolution out of hand in a libelous manner? It's a far more useful position in terms of discussing socio-cultural issues to take the tact that there is no genuine macro-evolutionary theory and see what happens- simply poke around like many a diagnostician! Evolution in an applied societal sense frequently appears religious. At times, it even looks like simple ideology wrapped in worship- considered above reproach, held untouchable and unassailable like an icon, sacred relic or time-worn liturgical utensil. At minimum, the theory carries a traditionally assigned, compelling scientific status. This is in spite of its showing some evidence of erosion. In addition, it is nonempirical in several areas, routinely passing through theoretical muster while using untested and in some cases untestable propositions (at least, in terms of hypothesis testing). Here still, I am essentially connecting the dots in what I consider to be areas I am most knowledgable in, evolution in the social sciences. This includes anthropology, my specialty.

Is ID not theory? The term "theory" is applied to scientific models that generate hypotheses that CAN be tested, not to models that hold a track record of having been tested and yielding supportative, valuable findings. If theories' underlying hypotheses first have to be comprehensively tested before they could have the designation as theory assigned them, then they would be mere social devices, not the inductive and predictive technical guides they really are. They would also constitute fly-paper for hypotheses more than the catapults for ideas they really are!

Here's the real reason ID is assaulted: It competes with Evolution, a theory being 'shorn up'. Over time, evolution has evolved from the cause-effect model Darwin proposed it to be to a pattern-elaboration one it is used nowadays in actual practice. This is actually understandable, for evolution has had to be used in this way due to its sweeping scope, particle reductionism, and intractible hypothesis testing status. It has exhibited a strong incapacity for hypothesis testing to be accomplished with it. Maybe testing lengthy multivariate events on such a grand, sequential time scale is a futile exercise. Popper had a fit once over the atypicality of this theory.

Evolutionists at times present a decidedly overfocused view of theory, implying a capital 'T' as in Grand Theory when discussing ID. It's narrowly applied, thus contrived, overspecified definition. Maybe it's the act of using a reserved, populist view for the political purpose of enacting an invective against ID. Dumping diatribe on my bandwagon once more, some highly specialized, ad hoc, contrived definitions are being used to weigh ID in the prejudiced accounts. Yes indeed, I hold this social viewpoint very religiously! So slip me over into the religious book section p(r)etty please!

If only related groupings of successfully tested hypotheses are allowed to constitute legitimate scientific theory, then certain mechanisms and various aspects of evolutionary theory make it fail the same test, at least as Smokey has defined it here. I think it is an overly elaborate definition of theory he has suggested here.

Theory as a general construct for scientific methodology and testing is a far cry from the particularized coverage given here by Smokey. Still, we cannot explain such complex matters to grade school children, so such highly resolved views can have some social merit: This one appears an awe-inspiring embellishment of a vital scientific concept made of simple scientific jargon, apparently to instill admiration for science in grade schoolers.

Is this the kind of scientific coverage that gets used against ID by proponents of evolution? Yes, I think so. Is it also being done for purposes of curriculum control in our elementary schools? Are grade school teachers the ones in control, making ID a special case? I hope not. Then it would basically constitute a process of mixing innocent overspecifications in with a few lazy inaccuracies to fill the educational goals of some interest group. I think other similarly defined terms are being used to heap insincere and inequitable social ridicule and defamation on ID.

Once again, I have frequently stated that evolution's more arrogant proponents are consistently imprecise in their handling of definitions and inaccurate in terms of their language. They tend to be spiteful. I attribute the spiteful tendency to schools of thought attempting to maintain traditional distinctions and a sense of intellectual confidence, spilling over into pomposity and overconfidence. Thus the status quo can be disadvantaged. Evolution's foundational rhetoric often incorporates a single-minded, confidence-assertive approach based on a group of highly repetitious, traditions/platitudes for purposes of self-assurance and even self-aggrandizement in its neonates. This is the historical process of responsible scientific professions working at their optimal best.

Is a successful track record of predictions needed in order to qualify as a theory? Maybe famous and traditional ones. Is that what evolutionists' mean by theory? No test of successful or superior adaptation to a particular niche has been established longitudinally in evolution. And without IDing superior adaptations, there's no tracking progress upward. Without operational (measurable) definitions of them taken from past experience, we simply have no benchmark except superficial complexity for future tracking of meaningful biological progress on any scales that would allow humans to directly observe it. Is evolution a sheltered theory?

Wednesday, May 26, 2010


It was a strange scene. Seven little trees were moving up a clearing toward some large trees at the top of a hill. The tree at the very top was the tallest and biggest. Its limbs were nearly completely covered beneath a huge canopy of leaves. The leaves were held out by limbs that looked very much like strong arms. Its branches reached far out from its trunk to the sides and rear, except at one point. There was a little spot devoid of branches and leaves directly in front of the huge tree. At that point, something stood out that looked like a face.

The old tree looked like a ridiculously top-heavy parasol. Apparently, only its huge tail kept the old tree standing upright.

His name was Father Tree. The little ones had obviously come up to see him. When they got close, they stopped and bowed their little green heads to him. As they did, you could hear the canopy of leaves rustle. Father Tree turned around slowly towards them. He returned their gesture with a jerk of his head.

"Good morning, Father Tree," they said.

"Good morning, little ones," he replied. "What brings you up here to the top of the hill this early in the morning?"

"Father Tree, please help us. We want to hear more about the olden days. We disagree about what we heard."

"Oh, the olden days, hmmm? ... How far back do you want to go?" answered the old tree politely.

"As far as you can!" said one tree in the group.

"Ah, well, I can only tell you what I know. I remember when I was a young tree. An old tree talked about things in the olden days -- in the time before we had brains, eyes, mouths, teeth, feet, and a tail."

"What ... no tail? How did we get our tail then?" barked one bright, little tree.

"Nobody can agree on that, child. I guess, no one really knows for sure. But, it appears that either something very powerful or someone who we don't see around today changed us and made us like we are today," answered the old one.

"Why are we here?" asked one little perceptive tree.

"Well, we only know what other trees have been able to discover by digging in the ground. We have feet to run with and hands to hold things with now. At sometime in the distant past, though, we were at the total mercy of the elements. We had no feet to move us or tail to balance with. That's why now when there is a flood or fire, you must move fast and escape from them!"

"But, Father Tree, how can you? You're so slow," barbed the bright little one again.

"That's true, so that must be why I have all you of young ones around me staying close by. You come, visit, keep an eye on me, okay? And you come help me move down the hill when things get bad.

There was another little tree who had remained silent the whole time up until now. She was shifting nervously side to side. She was obviously aggravated at something. She finally blurted out, "And what about bugs? I want to hear about the bugs!" The other young trees quickly moved in towards her. They began saying, "Shhh," "Sssshuttup," and "We're not supposed to ask about that!" She only glared back at them in silence. But she was not figgiting anymore.

Father Tree was scarred with several missing patches of leaves mixed in with a lot of oddly shaped, discolored ones. There were also a few places where his branches would not grow correctly anymore. That's why the little trees weren't supposed to ask him about the bugs.

"Oh, someone's asking about the bugs again. Well ...(sigh)... When an army of insects comes around, we all do our best to get away from them. But bugs can move very fast. You see, we still do not have the means to move away fast enough and outrun all of them."

The little trees gathered in a huddle. Then they whispered to the sage their one last question. "Why not, Father Tree?"

He had hoped that their inquiry wouldn't proceed this far. He sighed. "Ahhh, children. This gets very personal." He continued, "When some you were very young, the bugs came. I took you up in my arms and placed you deep inside my leaves. I hid you there close to my heart. And while I held you safe there, I could not get away from the bugs. I held you there until the terror passed. You see, I could survive their ravages, but as mere babes, you could not."

"You couldn't get away from the bugs because of us!" replied the littlest of all.

"That's true," said the aged tree, "You see, there is an important lesson about life that you need to learn. Young and old must always stick together and help each other out- especially during the bad times. This is a lesson about a purpose for life and death. Neither generation can survive apart or by itself. Each of us at different times needs the encouragement and assistance of the other. Perhaps that could tell us something about our real origin. Something very elegant made things in this way. And that's the best explanation I have to give you for the way we are now."

Monday, April 19, 2010

The Absurdity of Expecting the Mainstream Press to Publish ID Books

I guess we should sample the title pages of the anti-slavery books from the 19th century and women's suffrage books from the early 20th, and then analyze the list of publishers that printed them. Then we could decide for ourselves which positions were right. It's a good argument for people who characteristically find relief and acquiesce in the simple view of things. However, it is comparable to the act of judging the quality of a cake from the visual appearance of its icing, or the quality of a store by its window-dressing.

Most strategies used by the status quo to deny legitimacy and prevent institutional access to individuals holding radically new views constitute such examples of shallow-minded thinking, evidently at the point they perceive they are loosing too many constituents. That is the same point in time you see a large number of derisive statements cropping up. Ostensibly, it is for the purpose of reigning in the faithful by employing very simple thus easily politicized sketches outlining a group's essential, though self-admittedly cryptic, positions and dogma. It's by-product is discrimination legally speaking, the unfair treatment of individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, age, or intellectual position.

What should we make of this current state of affairs? I suggest the following approach: ID, take heart and bide your time! The current evolutionist strategy is dangerously short-sighted. As long as this kind of treatment is levied against you in the form of tangible economic effect and levelled against you in public instances of harangue that bring very evident professional anguish, then historically speaking- you cannot lose! Persecution and defamation historically have never succeeded, at least in the long run. What you should really fear is winning under the wrong circumstances, or perhaps 'winning' at all.

If evolutionists actually wanted to kill your position and do so effectively, they would gobble it up. That is, they would insincerely welcome it for a time. Once in real control, sitting back in their chairs in academic departments, they would quietly sidetrack its arguments, water down its import, and defuse all its insights about evolution. That would leave them in control and you demoralized- in a quandry! You actually should rejoice that your intellectuals and scientists are still powerfully in control of the development of your arguments and viewpoint, and not converted evolutionists such as I.

I have a M.A. in Anthropology from a large midwestern US university and wrote my thesis on the sexual evolution of primates (basically supporting macroevolution). Now I take the naturalistic ID position. But I think some creationists should maintain a base of control of ID, not because they are unjustly accused of being in collusion with ID and of already doing being in control, but from the high risks that academic compromise could bring to ID's goals. Academic acceptance of the ID position is ID's greatest risk due to the fact that ID scientists appear to long excessively for such acceptance. Professionally speaking, that is advantageous, but politically speaking, it is very unwise. I think you should be happy that you are being very obviously being treated rudely and unreasonably. You should even seek out public opportunities for such treatment. Think about THAT whenever you suffer ridicule. We should not be seeking personal comfort in the middle of a fight! And God help us intellectually, figuratively speaking, if the fight is ever over!

Remember, the American people are watching. Rely on the kind of people you know them to be. Subconsciously, evolutionists are deeply troubled at this, that is, by most Americans, their beliefs, curiousity, political nature, and love for the media. This cauldron is all working in the background against evolution and greatly to some evolutionists' chagrin. Some naively express strong sentiments about it in the columns posted here on Amazon Books. It is also an indication of what likely is really happening. The American people are most likely turning en mass against evolution.

Right now, anti-ID arguments look like fruit baskets to those helping shore up traditional evolution. But all the while, intellectually speaking, they are loud-ticking time bombs set out on a very public stage. And... haven't our parents and the American dream practically raised us to prefer the underdog?

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Riddle: With the English Language Changing So Quick, Does It Really Matter Whether the Selection is an Adjective or Adverb?

You've just been given a riddle, and in it, you've been given an example. Enough information is supplied even in the title to decide the matter.

While reading the title of this blog entry, you either winced or you didn't. Those who winced could be called prescriptivists, the authority-minded lot, and those who didn't wince, descriptivists, a democratic and user-friendly group.

The goal of the riddle is this: Find which group is analogous to the evolutionists and which one is analogous to intelligent design.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The Big Bang. An Origins Story.

Once the universe was a romance. Attraction and Repulsion ruled the roost and Indifference and Excitement were their little kids. Attraction tried to make something of itself, and Repulsion tore it down. Indifference sought patience, the pattern that time brought. Excitement did its own thing, ignoring all sorts of problems.

Then something slammed into this family. It did so with a bang. No one really knows what it was. We never really know in a divorce, do we? Whatever it was, it caused the Big Bang. Attraction gave up and Repulsion got so angry, it blew everything away! Away from what? Well, away from what ever type of romance they had.

What a mess! Things stayed on the edge of nothingness for a while. Then one day a stranger came by. That stranger decided to make a difference. The mess was cleaned up so that the alienation and divorce of principles might never occur again. That stranger was intelligence.

It all has happened before. And it will happen again. It may happen innumerable times- at least until someone gets some real brains and changes the rules of the game in the physical universe.