Is Evolution in the Social Sciences a Theory or Thesis?

ABSTRACT: Generally speaking, the data of the social sciences is less quantifiable than that found in the physical sciences. Evolutionary studies in the social sciences are based on qualitative methods for the most part. The interpretation of their findings thus resemble the theses of historical research more than they do the quantifiable theories of the physical sciences.

Evolutionary theory in the social sciences is largely qualitative. It is methodologically based on theses more than it is on scientific theories. Theses are not theories. Let me explain this in a preliminary way. For one, evolution is weak on cause. Most of its process statements are not empirically testable. Also, referring to methodology, evolutionary theory traces prehistorical events using inferences based largely on fossil finds. This is in much the same way that historians write history based on inferences taken from archived data. The only interaction with the data here is mental. Theory and hypothesis do not tug on each other in tandem; they do not feedback on one another except, of course, in writing. Theses come out of the writing exercise; theories pour out of and on empirical research. Theses are tacked on to the end of a research report as its inspiration, justification and light background. Theories are mentioned throughout a research reports, serving as its rationale, organizational framework, and ultimate objective. Evolution in the social sciences handles theory, methodologically speaking, the way theses are developed and supported in history.

Sccial science studies of evolution do not test hypotheses in the physical science sense. They do not incorporate the use the practice of drawing up theory-derived hypotheses and running them through empirical tests, with the exception of some archeology and anthropological linguistics studies. Instead, studies tend to use the same kind of data processing and style of support as found in the studies of history. The subfields of archeology and anthropological linguistics I found to be more quantitative. But physical and cultural anthropology were not. They are largely qualitative in terms of the research enterprise. Many people believe evolutionary studies to be based on hypothesis testing. This is for the most part not true in the social sciences. Research about evolution in social science is run on a different basis than many people believe.

My bachelor's degree was a double major in education and the social sciences. Later, I was a graduate student and teaching assistant in history for a semester at a state university in the Midwest U.S. I did not flunk out; I got straight As in history. I changed my graduate study to the social sciences in the following semester. My masters degree was in anthropology. I studied as a doctoral student and worked as teaching assistant in anthropology for several years more. So I the had opportunity to see both disciplines in action, and write graduate papers for both departments.

Studying history taught me how history is written. Of course, there is some variety. But there are also general practices as well. So any conclusions we could draw are based on generalities, generalities that could be quantified and studied, as well. Historians essentially write theses about the written past and support them with arguments. These are used to build a thesis. Support is found for the thesis, and both are then checked by a professor or committee (one type of peer review). They are carefully scrutinized, but not by using the rigorous method of hypothesis generation and testing. Theses are not theories in the sense that they are not subject to any kind of rigorous quantitative tests, quantitative methods, or strict checklists. They also go through periods of change called revision rather like theories do, but thesis revision is more like a change of a point of view than of a world view. Theories do change. They undergo the much slower and more profound changes called paradigm shifts, at least as compared to the way change occurs in the physical sciences. Scientific theories use a more rigorous, deductive process of syphoning off hypotheses as derivations of a theory, rigorously designing them with committee oversight, conducting actual tests according to a methodology distinctive to a particular discipline, and then subjecting the results to evalutation in the form of peer review. Publication may or may not ensue based on additional factors. Ramifications to the theory are then pondered as a reflective, mental exercise essentially only after testing by peer review.

History uses a very different process of pondering a thesis throughout its generation and writing. There is no rigorous testing performed at any time; it is qualitative, too, meaning it generally contains no numerical data or statistical testing. Rationale, style, logic, and new supplementary information are the guides in thesis writing, by one individual. Peer review comes afterwards, not throughout the research.

Evolutionary theory in biology and genetics may be more rigorous than in the social sciences. I certainly hope so. These sciences are much more quantitative in their methodologies. But at least in the social sciences, evolution is a written using a style of argument and logical presentation of support in the form of anecdotal evidence for the most part. Some quanitative evidence is sometimes added in. It is included as a supplement when such exists, but it is extremely limited in terms of its use and ramifications for evaluation. In essence, the main argument ushers forth from the mind and views of a writer and his or her ability to persuade, not from a rigorous evaluation of research targets met or not met and any relevant data obtained.

If what I am saying here is correct, then the study of evolution is social studies, not social science. I apply this only to the soft (as contrasted to the hard) sciences. In these disciplines, it is most like historical studies in terms of its methodology and writing approach.

Evolutionists Often Lambast Intelligent Design; Should ID Lash Back?

ABSTRACT: Evolutionists and their critics are engaged in battle. It is a war of words. There are hawks, dogmatists and extremists in both camps. How strongly and in what manner should intelligent design proponents react to the criticisms of evolutionists? That's the subject of this blog entry. It recommends taking a courteous and respectful approach while remaining extremely honest and forthright in discussions.

Evolution is seen by proponents as a slow accumulation, mindless, goal-less, half-blind, round-about-way of changing the genetic makeup of species. I see its labelling of clear-cut empirical causes in the environment as not its strong suite, though its insights about the statistical probabilities of fortuitous genetic alterations is. Neither can evolution legitimately be criticized as a pointless, directionless, or unproductive process, as some critics believe. The theory of evolution models a chain of fortuitous, reinforcing, unplanned events that link up and cross paths with natural laws. Its result is modeled as the mindless accumulation of benefitial genetic traits, though in an agonizingly slow manner. The accumulative effects, however, are nothing short of astounding.

Evolution has generators (of genetic variation), but it lacks explicit processing forces (selective causes). That is to say it has no easily identified processors in nature. The theory envisions genetic errors in resulting from the process of organism replication as seeding change (providing the raw material in the form of genetic replication changes, viz., 'errors'), and survival loadings/effects in the environment selectively weeding out (selecting) the final results. But hypotheses generated by the theory are in most cases rather broad, nondescript models. Proponents are often not very certain in just how all this works; certainly not enough for empirically testing hypotheses against competing, alternative explanations. The basic mindset that typically comes out is unilateral--that there are no competing views. Even the null hypothesis is considered inconceivable at times as a possiblity. General causes are asserted as explanations, but are for the most part never empirically checked out. Descriptive statistics and probabilities are the field's mainstay, but not the use of statistics that would bear out matters of cause, such as multivariate statistics or regression.

It can also legitimately be said that the theory is quite defensive, esoteric, conjectural, and nonempirical when it comes to any criticism about the scientific need of checking empirically for factors of cause/influence. This is tantamount to check for actual causes or influences in the organism's environment. Its proponents are thus simple in their approach and uncritical in action when dealing with opposition to their views, essentially resorting to name calling, not to mention the practice of showing absolute closed-mindedness about competitive views. It is as if they are at war with all criticism. Lashing back is immediate and across the board, and especially heaped on views that even remotely identify with religion.

Non-evolutionists are split as a result over the matter of how much criticism to level against evolution. It has been my experience that individuals who entertain a solely text-based faith (a completely Bible-based view) such as traditional creationists tend to actively entertain the idea that believing in macroevolution is a stupid idea. But at least some scientists believing in teleology think not. They understand that macroevolutionists essentially approach the data from a different theoretical perspective. Some evolutionists are even not aware of this essential difference, however. They are not dumb, stupid, crazy, or ignorant, however. They are just not very self-aware about their value judgments or world view.

It has been my experience that only evolutionists who consistently write badly and argue illogically on weekdays can be justifiably thought of as dumb. Actually, it is a bad approach. For that matter, any consistently poor writer and debater could be considered to be doing the same. Nevertheless, unless such behavior is a consistent, a pattern woven like a thread in an individual's multiple arguments, he or she could be just having a bad hair day or be languishing in a stupor. So it's always best to hold in reserve the meanest of criticisms until one has watched and assessed a writer over an extended period of time. In a nutshell, I recommend critics not try to jump to the practice of using harsh terms without first establishing a good reason. Even then, the decent, careful and respectful use of labels with people and opinions is always appreciated.

These suggestions are biased by my own personal experiences: I wrote my masters thesis in anthropology at a major midwestern U.S. university in explicit support of the macroevolution of primates, the evolution of sexual behavior in primates to be exact. That wasn't being unintelligent at the time. I just held a different theoretical explanation for the same findings as I do now (actually fewer at that earlier date). It has been my long-term belief that this is the most basic difference between the origin camps in America, all insults and purgative labels aside. ID scientists (but not many creationists in my experience) appear to realize this fact. Unfounded criticism is one of the first things typically heaped on evolution by creationists meeting an ID proponent for the first time, but not by ID proponents. That is the fair-play reason why ID's different historical roots and ideological distinctiveness deserve to be more widely recognized. But there is little fair play or attentiveness to the issue of truth shown in debates of origins these days. It has the flavor of a battle waged between political interest groups.

A resolution of the hostilities should come down to a matter of preparing good historical accounts versus promoting the self interest of one's profession. It is a quick and easy fix to post creed-based reactions in a bombastic manner. Similarly, one can get an emotional lift from contributing a one-sided salvo into the perceived climate of a war of propaganda. However, some ID scientists are former evolutionists. As a result, harsh views against evolutionists typically will be hard to come by from them. On the other hand, whenever a position or point is counterproductive to the evolutionists' cause nowadays, some of the latter group won't readily or easily admit that it is a valid fact even when it has become a matter of simple historical record. Just like failing to admit Stephen Gould's remark about the lack of transitional fossils being the biggest kept secret in evolutionist circles or Karl Popper's quickly retracted remark that the theory of evolution was among the most unsatisfying of all scientific explanation, it's as much like pulling teeth to get evolutionists to admit these facts as it is to get a Bible-based believer to admit that microevolution is a scientifically proven fact. It may even someday reduce down to different definitions of what various groups consider evolution to be, although this could also turn out to be a gross oversimplification of the facts. Still, creationists and evolutionists' stubborn and blind dismissal out-of-hand of any position-damaging evidence and the direct consequences of such an approach to evidence seem to be the most profound and poignant feature in the whole debate. It is blind, but not dumb faith at work, I suggest. It derives not from any real lack of intelligence, but from insular adamant support on both sides from some interest groups, a very harsh political agenda within others, and a dogmatic way of perceiving things in a few very vocal proponents.

There are thus extremists and shallow-minded thinkers on both sides. Writing from the standpoint of feeling aggrieved is part of being human. I wouldn't call any of it dumb, however. It is just not a characteristic feature of being a generally tolerant, highly reflective professional who is willing to look at the assumptions underlying his or her positions and admit the magnitude and direction of their effects. Instead, many proponents slide across the surface of established rules, detesting caveats and immediately rejecting all thinking to the contrary, even though Darwin's own writings reflect a deliberation in thought and care in reasoning carried to the extreme. Then again, I too have been caught on the Internet with my pants down on that hopefully infrequent, irreverently bad day.

Intelligence Lies at the Heart of the Biological Progress of Nature

ABSTRACT: First of all, the concept of embryonic, rudimentary intelligence is presented. Such sensory input-output response appears not only in animals, but in some plants as well. The example of a Venus flytrap is presented. Secondly, the fact that the fossil record shows compelling evidence that intelligence and complexity have increased in a curvilinear fashion over time is discussed. The branching in Darwin's tree of life is likened to seasonal renewal in flowering plant life. Assuming intelligence is behind the process, could it be a seasonal growth-life cycle with rather broad systems output implications? This is contrasted with the more mechanical process of soil accumulation and development mixed with times of erosion and decay, an alternative analogy. Thirdly, evolutionary discussions are likened to a granular view of matter and ID views to a systems-functional one. The possibility that intelligence exists more generally in nature than is commonly believed is also raised. Intelligence of some form is clearly behind the actions of organisms active in the environment. Could there also be a general targeting system in nature, propelling biological and physical structures (planets, for instance)upward towards more general and higher levels of operation? That is, could intelligence be an active agent itself to affect selection and change? If not, it is its conspicuous absence that should be a matter for great concern, because this is otherwise incongruous with most of what we know about cause in physical world phenomena. Upward bias and intelligent functions certainly exist in nature. Can we find their antecedants in more than simple statistical descriptions of genes making up things? Intelligence at the source of the domestication of plants and animals is cited as one example.

Rudimentary intelligence has been independently produced several times on this planet. In addition, its sequential and repeated enhancement has occurred many more times, and there is strong evidence of this in the tree of life, the fossil record. Relative brain-body ratio and associated intelligence do not appear to have gone down with new speciation typically; if anything, they have increased overall in a successive, relentless, systems-enhancing manner!

Although evolutionists bring up a very few analogies of complex systems like tornadoes and hurricanes to explain cascading unintelligent systems, such weather system models are too basic and short-lived to explain the course and progression of planet life. Although evolutionists have been looking for such explanatory models of progressively complex phenomena to replace intelligent causal ones for more than a century, they are still hard put to find any useful analogies in the task. Nature's logic may be pitted against it. Evolution thus remains weak in terms of its explanatory power. It remains at the descriptive and simple suggestive levels.

A more fitting weather analogy to use to explain the systems connection to the evolutionary tree of life would be crop circles. Crop circles approach the intricate and elaborate character of intelligently derived systems. Surprisingly, however, evolutionists shy away from such models. Any model that can be linked to the paranormal or to intelligent behavior is generally considered out-of-bounds by them. Still and by far, the largest number of explanations and analogies in nature for complex systems are best explained using direct cause, intelligent-control, or stimulus-response models. The aggregate-summative chaos model of mutation combined with reproduction-only controlled selection is simply a wrong choice for framing the evolution of life.

In terms of developmental transitions, the branches in the tree of life look more like graphic illustrations with time on the X axis of seasonal seeding-sprouting cycles than of seasons of soil accumulation and development mixed with times of erosion and decay! Both views of the evolutionary process are actually useful. They are helpful analogies at the level of description. Actually, the analogies are descriptions of farming cycles, though each one is different in terms of its basic scope and focus: the first attempts to trace systems history; the second, particle history. The two views are valid, though not equal in import. Of course, the first one is my own view of epoch-length biological/structural progress. It is an analogy about renewal in flowering plant life. It refers to a seasonal growth-life cycle with rather broad systems output implications. This former model also adds a goal-oriented perspective on to the process. The second view, on the other hand, is a simple mechanical description based on soil (particle) analysis. It is a comparative tracing of a field's soil deposition, composition and development. Later on, I may go into greater depth in discussing this topic if it finds an interested audience, or an interesting audience.

Evolutionary/ID discussions often trace along similar fossil record lines. However, discussions of process remain at different levels: the granular view versus the systems-functional one. Neither view provides immediate empirical insights on cause, either deductively or implicitly. Genetic treatments of evolution are the particle physics view of genomes taken almost to the extreme analogy of a perpetual motion machine. ID treatments are the itinerant, indefatigable, mistake-prone, although ultimately successful inventor view of organisms (referring back to Thomas Edison's style of invention during his early years). Now, enough of what might turn out to be purely esoteric musings and surreal over-descriptions of the two main parties involved in the current national origins debate! More barbs will follow, at the price of listening to my harping on the need for more independent thinkers in theoretical science. However, these are rooted in my view of the current status of theoretical explanations as used by traditional evolution versus the established ID model.

Views are not perfect. And neither is science perfect--ever. But many people want and need them to be perfect. We have a whole host of perfectionists parading around America and on the Internet,'a'-plying a utopian-like vision. That is, they are pining over what all of us including the intellectuals or pundits should be singing (in unison, of course)! They'd love to hold the position of trade-show host or tour guide for the rest of us! But any perfectionist (or dogmatist for that matter) cannot end up being the best analyst or scientist as a matter of principle. This is because such people frequently overstate the facts supporting their own positions and understate any opposition's. It is a personality trait antithetical to science. Look for this telltale sign or activist's trademark, as it reveals a character trait that is fundamentally at odds with the tenative nature of truth in science, a policy that every scientist is supposed to ingrained with when trained in the research methodology of his or her field!

Returning to more particulars: Remarkable sensory input-output response appears not only in animals, but in some plants as well. But in plants, intelligence is non-neural. Take the Venus flytrap, for instance. It sensitive 'hairs' trigger a nearby mouth to close in an instant when they are touched, and this reaction is quick enough to catch a fly. Later, the catch triggers a secretion sequence--the soft parts of the hapless creature are then digested, absorbed as nutrients that help the plant survive and reproduce. Although it has no brain or neurons as we currently conceive of them, these response systems are quite analogous to the nervous system in animals, and not unlike the control systems in computers built using sensors, triggers, and transducers in control/feedback loops. Intelligence in the most basic sensing-processing sense is at the root of the Venus flytrap's physical, targeted reactions.

We may not be giving nature proper credit for the windfalls it has been pulling off for millions of years! It generated intelligence in plants. Maybe it has done so in control genes, too. And perhaps intelligence can even be found in microbes! If so, this would go a long way towards illustrating the need for a new definition of intelligence. It would also have the effect of supporting the view that an intelligent targeting system probably exists in nature that has been steering biological progression upward in the tree of life. Something has most definitely been harmonizing the various branches of the tree of life. It could also be building to a grand finale if the underlying cause behind the process is leading to functional enhancement, and not merely function-repetitive in character!

Most geneticists appear to prefer to skirt all discussions about physical cause and effect in evolution, subordinating such discussions to the level of description governing the behavior of microscopic particles, or else they refer to a model illustrating the fortunate, advantageous rolls of the dice. I maintain that these in most cases constitute little or no explanation at all. At the most, they stand as oversimplified and crude descriptions of what happened in the processes of the tree of life. They have some merit for description, but stand as simple and far too general outlines of the processes to be of any empirical and real explanatory (natural scientific) value. They should remain mere propoganda for the masses. However, they have turned into much more!

If there is such an embryonic precusor to intelligence in plants, perhaps it exists more generally in nature, and maybe in unexpected places, too! A philosophical question thus arises: Although intelligence of some form is clearly behind the actions of organisms active in the environment, could it also be propelling biological or physical structures (such as planets and ecosystems) upward towards some general or higher level of operation? That is, is intelligence merely a dead-end result in biological procession, or can it be an active agent itself to affect selection and change? Could it be both source and goal, and purpose and product in some cases? One answer to this is immediately obvious: Intelligence is the source of domestication of plants and animals. No natural selection should be emphasized here; it is all artificial selection at work. The cause is intelligent action, usually deliberate and routine, although at other times, it is completely inadvertant and unforeseen!

It may be worth identifying more areas in which intelligent selection is the controlling influence behind genetic progression. The answer might be found in the nature of causal events themselves (Are they mental or physical concepts?) or in other logical, underlying processes to be found in the universe. Pandemic operation of intelligence throughout nature is only one possibly.

The key to finding evidence of intelligent effect in the progress of biological complexity is probably in learning how to look for it. Most definitions of intelligence are stated in terms of bigger brains or higher mental functions. These are only two aspects of intelligence. Any basic intelligence acting within nature's fundamental fabric may simply be too slow for our biological minds to fathom or even perceive, much like our difficulty in understanding human speech recorded on a cassette recorder, then played back at a much slower speed. At some point in the slowdown, words become unintelligible even though the message remains an intelligent one. I think it is quite useful hypothesis that a 'lumbering, directional, persistent intelligence' is waiting to be found in nature, one that acts on some but not all structures of the universe, prompting directional change towards increased complexity. We appear currently untrained in detecting such intelligence, but this is a moot point since we haven't even been looking for it. Most evolutionists I've talked to say there is need to do so. However, I as of yet have not heard any serious attempts to explain cause behind this graduated, tenacious phenomenon of nature--of new species climbing to/reaching ever higher levels of intelligence and biological complexity. Environmental changes are not very likely directional or tenacious enough so as to empower such an upward-development bias. Something has been causing or prompting it, and the answer is not likely to be found solely in the statistical incidences of genes or the probabilities of mutations.

We may be looking in the wrong place. Intelligence of such a rudimentary, directional sort could be as simple as a resonance in nature. Or it might impinge on different facets or be inherent in multiple levels of nature, from molecules to genes, or even in the habitual motor functions (such as the heart beat and digestive functions) of organisms. Checking for the actions of intelligence couldn't hurt. It may only impact on our current views of evolution. To those who say no evidence of intelligent selection yet exists, I can say confidently: Unidirectional change, namely, upward progress in complexity has been occuring for millions of years and continues all around us today. Open your eyes and minds to the possibility of intelligent action. Take a more functional/systematic view of physical things. Begin to attribute refined cause and directional momentum to nature, i.e., gain a real understanding of the increasing complexity of systems operating all around you--instead of being satisfied in a mere numbers game at the explanatory level of descriptive statistics.

Why ask for investigations into cause? Evolution is the final statement on biological matters, isn't it? Maybe not. It may be more a superficial description at the processual level than any type of causal explanation at all. Explaining the tree of life as a process based essentially on the accumulation of environmentally advantageous traits may be myoptic, trivial, and circular in nature, i.e., not a statement of cause at all. Do corporations report on product development and record track records by resorting to descriptions at the atomic level? Then why do we tolerate geneticists reducing biological products down to mere statements of genes? What about some explanation of cause, too? Evolution may turn out to be a dumbed-down variable and description set offered by over-indulgent fans infatuated with genetic parsimony instead of being concerned about empirically identifiable environmental causes. Even if evolution is not the latter, it cannot hurt to try and find out.

Who Am I?

ABSTRACT: Next, I want to introduce myself. I have already presented my views on intelligent design. Maybe readers want know who I am and what my qualifications are for writing about this subject.

I am a former doctoral student and teaching assistant in anthropology. I received an M.A. in Anthropology at the main campus of a state university in the midwestern U.S. I wrote my masters thesis in the mid-1980s in explicit support of what is now commonly called macroevolution, namely, on the evolution of sexual behavior in primates. I took most of my graduate courses in anthropology in the subfields of cultural and physical anthropology. I spent several years as a doctoral student in the department.

As doctoral student in anthropology, I spent four years studying evolution. I was also the graduate student representative for the Department of Anthropology and head of the Social Science Division for the university's Graduate Student Association for one year. In the following year, I became vice president of that same student council, serving one year in the executive office. This made me the second highest ranking graduate student in terms of student politics on the huge campus. As such, I was no lightweight student in the Department of Anthropology.

For now, I will skip ahead: Currently I work as an ESL teacher. My specialty is ESL reading for junior highs. I teach English as a Second Language to both adults and children. I am married and have two children. I live and work happily in Japan, and have done so for the past 17 years.

What is Naturalistic Intelligent Design?

ABSTRACT:I first offer an overview and then provide a definition of naturalistic intelligent design (NID). I do so by discussing each term making up NID. In a world where creationism elaborates views of religions and traditional ID encroaches on them, and where evolutionary theory borders on the use of magical, mechanical explanations in the sense of magic as defined by Bronislaw Malinowski (offering largely process/step, noncausal explanations) as well as unmeasurable, grandiose abstractions of processes, naturalistic intelligent design may end up being the best nature-focused explanation for origins. Each of its models must be entirely naturalistic in scope and composition and include at least one feature of intelligence as a contributory cause. No reference to or use of supernatural explanations is made. NID models, nonetheless, span the whole gamut of scientific levels of consideration ranging up to hard physical science explanations such as control genes operating as intelligent processors, down through the socio-intelligence causes of domestication, to pseudo-scientific views such as time travel and alien modification of genomes. At the end of this entry, I leave a very succinct overview of my secondary research findings and a prospectus for future natural intelligent design research.

The need for naturalistic intelligent design models seems rather obvious: Modern science has practically ignored discussions of intelligence as a factor in cause. Many research investigations and explanations work around factors involving high levels of integration, instead atomizing and mechanizing processes along the way. Science here tends to favor parsimony, and this approach could be overly reductionistic as a result. Loving naturalism does not require one to be in bed with parsimony or fascinated by particle physics or mechanical representation. In some scientific fields, a tabu exists on using input-output processed activity in explanations, and this is very evident in studies of origins. Probably, origin studies have atomized their explanations in order to avoid the high levels of integration that consider functional, systemic activity or the processing of sensory input/outputs as a cause in genetic change. Consequently, they avoid tests that could investigate cause to avoid getting involved with detailed explanations, focusing instead on probabilities or general qualitative processes. It turns some of their explanations into descriptive statistical statements, and others of them into nonempirical esoteric propositions. Empirical testing lies in the middle ground between the two, and is usually missing. Naturalistic intelligent design seeks to correct this, to judiciously put back into scientific investigation some of what has been imprudently deleted or just merely ignored.

I did not invent the term naturalistic intelligent design (NID). Other writers have used it, including Warren Bergerson, Glenn Shrom (See Response 15), and Chris Cogan. Bill Schultz has made a call for the development of such a field of study and CJYMAN has posted some very lucid and intriguing discussions of the term on the Internet. Here I will provide mainly my own ideas, since current discussions of the term do not demonstrate any long-standing or elaborate use of the term. Of course, the best definition would be developed in collaboration with a group of knowledgable contributors, so I especially would like to request reader assistance in this area. Please feel free to offer comments about defining NID. If you do so near the time of the blog posting, I promise to seriously consider your comment, refining my own definition as needed. In the following paragraphs, I will supply a discussion and definition of the term NID organized around an explanation of each of the words comprising it. I take this basic initial approach in hopes of simplifying understanding for readers.

Naturalism is the queen of the sciences. It is one of the finest, most enduring tenets to be found in science. The doctrine has a long and venerable history. Many scientists cling to it adamantly, often as a matter of scientific integrity or firm professional principle, and this is especially true of people who study origins, the topic area I will discuss in this blog. Indeed naturalism has long filled the role of watch-dog for science, legitimizing knowledge and keeping scientific inquiry distinctive and resilient. It also protects it from ideologies that actively compete against it in society and would otherwise pollute it: intuition, common sense, revelation, tradition, mores, a priori beliefs, societal prescriptions, and social prejudices, just to name a few. And this is not to mention views that can and do corrupt science due to government’s oftimes support and abuse of it—political views. Science's long-standing policy of conducting scientific research by amassing real world data and performing natural observation has kept it a productive and secular enterprise. It also has resulted in the fundamental grounding of all scientific explanations in the physical world and in real world causes. There is much to be said for this. Much good has come from it. Naturalistic intelligent design works within this framework of naturalism.

Scientific naturalism is applied as one of science's investigatory policies. Science routinely excludes phenomena having no real world referents. Science thus becomes investigation, explanation and theoretical conjecture performed using purely natural terms. This historic practice of conducting investigation into phenomena as a purely real world, physical activity has gone so far as to result in the terms science, empiricism, and naturalism becoming nearly synonymous, at least, in the common person’s vernacular. Becoming a scientist is thus virtually equivalent to being acculturated in the investigation of real world processes and/or phenomena.

Scientific methodology, too, is essentially empirical in character, and this is especially true in the so-called hard physical sciences. No appeal is made to realms of the supernatural, magical, or religious for any explanation or description. Notwithstanding, scientific theory does at times have to venture outside a purely observational realm; it has to include parameters that as yet remain outside the realm of the observed, the well-defined, or the well-understood factors of the physical world. This is to explain things. Take the Big Bang, quarks, and genotypes, for example. None of these phenomena can (or could) be directly observed. This caveat is largely limited to the domain of projecting process and cause in theoretical propositions. That is to say, to argue empirical science is essentially rooted in nature and natural observation is not to say that it is an all-seeing enterprise.

I adhere to the doctrine of naturalism. However, I do take issue with what I see as a related matter: I think there is a wanton, non-rigorous dependence on gradualism in origins studies at this time in history. Accumulative gradualism has been confused with naturalism. The view of gradualism as a biological process of accretion is relied on too heavily to be of any practical good in science. I have seen it used as a black box substitute to avoid the need of rigorous, detailed investigation in evolutionary studies. This action is lazy, regretful and completely unnecessary. The appeal to regular, near-limitless time epochs in evolutionary events is a lax approach. It is in fact a scientifically degrading activity, most often performed in most brazen fashion to demonstrate allegiance to the status quo and insulate evolutionary doctrines from legitimate critique. Such long expanses of time ought to be only considered a backdrop on which biological progression has been played out. They are not sufficient, real world cause in and of themselves. Gradualism thus used as a mindnumbing tonic cannot be legitimately substituted in the place of evidence and establishment of cause. Else references to slow, gradual (and thus regular or periodic) progress become an ode to ignorance and pat answer reassuring only the 'faithful', i.e., a cliché’ to keep one professionally above disrepute. In my opinion, Stephen Gould's model of evolution removed the psychological need for uncritical reliance on the exaggerated claims of gradualism in biology and genetics.

In terms of intelligence, what I am most intrigued about is the real world's myriad, brilliant, and intricate features allied with the resilient physical march upward in terms of greater complexity. This latter feature appears to be fundamental across the full operations of nature. This is to say there is an absolute skew in many physical world phenomena (not only in biology) toward increasing complexity over time and an inherent bias in reactions and reproduction for greater intelligence over time. It is as if the universe were biased in favor of complexity and intelligence as well as for enhancing them as a general rule. This sole, undeniable (?)fact is perhaps the best short answer for explaining origins in existence today (at least, according to NID), not any religious views or current, partial scientific views that describe some happenstance or chaotic outcome issuing from directionless processes. Otherwise, an upward direction of processes tangent has to be an accidental shew/bias that our universe has set off on; then its focus becomes a marginally novel or accidentally unique destination only in terms of our standpoint or localized perception. If there is accordingly no underlying cause, i.e., only accident, upward progression should level/top out, or at least show signs of not repeating in myraid variety and at multiple levels of nature.

When I get doubtful of NID, I wonder: Do complexity and intelligence exist as absolute or relative terms? Do they actually exist in the natural world or only in our minds? Perhaps it is an understanding of questions such as this one that will ultimately prove to be the best description our universe. Nevertheless, we should not lose sight of the fact that the novel description is still essentially a description, not an explanation or a cause. Is science actually capable of doing any better? Then follows the corollary, too: Might there be no first cause or starting point, i.e., not only in physics, but in biology as well? Would a biological big bang and any predating causes actually matter?

In my opinion, observations of complexity and intelligence in nature provide some of the most powerful and compelling evidence for the existence of a function of intelligent design in nature. Stated in this way, the underlying of NID cannot easily be denied. However, categorical denial is all many lazy or reductionist-minded people contribute to scientific discussions on origins these days. I call it the introductory/undergraduate (instead of resorting to the closed-minded) approach. Brilliant features reflected in the details of understanding the physical world's makeup, operations and activities (for instance, the physical world's interrelationships, functions, cycles, and biological niches) of necessity show at minimum a directed and persistent bias has operated in nature for many millions of years at multiple levels, and at most, an ongoing process of perfecting instantiated ideals, employing morphology or functional analogies and targets, has occurred. They make the generalized terms of environmental (natural) selection appear as inadequate explanations for the directionality exhibited in the fossil record.

The processes involved may be elusive. They may exist on a plane of operation above the operational understanding (although not the perusal) of biological minds. Nature's functions at this level may be more akin to a computer control mechanism or sensory input/output organ than a biological organism with a brain and drive or will. Even the plant kingdom appears smarter, more persistent, and tenacious in terms of ecology and its oversight of natural processes than we do, routinely speaking (i.e., humans and society).

Such observations could turn origins research on its head, so to speak. Making sense of an intricately operating, ever-increasingly complex, and increasingly smarter universe is equivalent to functionally interpreting it as an intelligent one in terms of its operations and resilient motion or directivity. This has become my definition of naturalistic intelligent design as of late. This view has also turned my pursuit of this subject from an erstwhile hobby into my habitual passion. It is the main reason why I started this blog. Oh, one more thing influenced the choice as well: I'm seeking out other people of similar persuasion or involved in the same kind of intellectual pursuit. Please contact me if you are interested in establishing any form of naturalistic intelligent design rubric.

Intelligence in my view is a prominent and near pervasive feature of the natural world. It should not be merely overlooked for the sake of competing views, but it often is. It should be investigated; but it almost never is. And statements of cause are impoverished by its conspicuous absence. What I am saying here is that the term is under-utilized and dodged for the purpose of most academic explanations. It is as if the matter has been settled conclusively or ruled out categorically in the court of most people's minds. The rationale most typically used is that there is no need to explain further due to nature of parsimony, but the parsimony being referred to here is merely a reduction of the origins inquiry to its atomistic (actually, genetic) levels. Particle explanations applied to higher levels of integration become no explanations at all. For instance, would resorting to a description of atomic particle interactions serve to definitively explain a game played on the Nintendo Wii System? I doubt it. Furthermore, the term intelligence is variously defined, and this complicates discussions, too.

The following situation exists: It is like a defense attorney in our age only needs to provide an excuse to explain away all victimization (cause)at any criminal trial--making an appeal to either the mere interactions of the instruments at the crime scene or an appeal to fate. The appeal becomes the authority, the final word on the matter, and all consideration is thereby stopped. Similarly, a simple-minded gloss or appeal to evolution as the comprehensive, authoritative explanation for biological progression is often employed in science to silence all calls for investigations that would further explain the nature of physical world cause. Once evolution is set in place as the visualized general explanation for origins, all further causal investigation typically ceases. In this sense, evolution is filling the same dogma-preserving role that religious councils did in the Enlightment. The real motive is elitist: to 'protect' the simple-minded masses from being 'fooled' by their inquisitive nature and 'charlatans'. The 'charlatans' are people not toeing the line in the Establishment.

I am aware that I construe intelligence to be a more prominent and persistent force in the physical world than most academics will admit. Still I maintain the scope of intelligent selection in the natural world is larger than what it traditionally has been presumed to be. Its commonly used sense—a mental capacity providing mere guidance for organisms’ actions and physiological processes issuing from the brains and nervous systems in organisms-is insufficient. Computer science has proven intelligence can be more than that. But how much more salient a factor in the real world is it? In my perspective, intelligence is a broader and more saturating phenomenon than most people dare realize, one analogous more to sensory processing and stimulus/response than thinking. Specifically, biological input/output processing, automatic control, and the timing of sequential processes show that intelligence in many organisms is like control processing or coaxing more than it is an act of the intellect or from decision making. We are sometimes slaves to the blinders of our limited mindset and terminologies. Past experience with IQ tests biases many people's conception of intelligence. I also intend to use the term of intelligence both as descriptive and causal (rather than appealing to random coincidence or natural selection alone) in nature, explaining repeated real biological events, analogies seen implicit in physical structures, insights revealing functions, identification of systems and interdependent relationships, and connected, biological processes. In addition, I even sometimes see intelligence at work in the molecular level. The operations of DNA, genes, chromosomes, proteins, anatomical growth, as well as many other physiological processes demonstrate some of aspects of it, especially the presence of complex management of functions, information input-output, specific timing of events, and sequential selective control. Intelligence is also the prime factor that has guided the domestication of plants and animals, and not even solely by human hosts.

The intelligent design paradigm envisions at minimum one of the following as biological targets in the upward-complexity march of organisms: either a pre-planned or pre-envisioned purpose, function, systemic structure/hierarchy, goal or need, or process(es), where it apparently serves to guide the biological progression of species upward. As such, it is more deductive than Darwinism. Darwin posited only an organism’s needs in the natural environment as differentially selective and directionally facilitative. Basically, he wrote of the progression of species as guided by the a very general but potent need, that of surviving to achieve procreation. Evolution therefore theoretically stands outside the prompting of any discernible map, directional influence, or other agency, including biases that could impel it to greater degrees of complexity, intelligence, or physical integration. It thus is more inductive, tracing out its own path to genetic potential using the environment, rather than following its natural structures and principles as a guide. That is why I choose to promote naturalistic ID, or artificial selection, instead of evolution. Naturalistic ID posits a physical world that inherently shadows, even statistically follows high level constructs of nature increasingly over time. Evolution, on the other hand, reflects nature toying in products randomly, mixing and miming functions accidentally over and over again; all the while remaining completely ignorant or oblivious to actual physical functioning or sensory based, input-output control (intelligence) nature may exhibit. Intelligence being behind anything in evolution is a no-no. Any preponderance of evidence to the contrary will not matter. Sorry to say, the current policy in science that suspends the null hypothesis and empirical testing in matters relating to evolution makes a majority of criticisms levelled against nonevolutionists a moot point.

In this blog, I will attempt to describe as well as solicit views from others on natural phenomena, causes, and explanations, especially those that can be attributed to intelligent selective action. I consider the operation of intelligence to be ascertainable in the fossil record, history of the domestication of species, the action of genes, control of complex systems, biological organs’ development and functioning, and even the repetitive features of the physical environment and their analogous structures found throughout multiple levels of the physical universe. These can be objects or events that can be attributed to intelligent operations in terms of a structural description, process, integration, function, antecedant or cause, i.e., from any perspective of observation. (Evolutionists typically deal with only the first two.) Whether I am right or wrong in my pursuit of this remains to be seen in particular cases, I am aware. Still it is a verifiable fact that investigations generally don't find what they fail to look for, even in spite of the fact that investigators' propositions are rarely all correct. So why not have a look is the real question.

Also in this blog, I will strictly avoid any appeals in explanation to theism and discussions about the supernatural. Instead, I intend to outline some of my ideas about intelligent design that are anchored in the actions of nature and of physiology alone, particularly as they are vested in the feature that I call natural intelligence. This inquiry will run the full gamut of seeking intelligence at play at the molecular and genetic levels (in DNA and control genes) up through the work of intelligence exhibited in complex actions and functions of brains. Even inanimate statistical processes (such as the population forces at work in the domestication of species by humans and animals) are candidates for the term intelligent action. I will exhibit Homo sapiens as showing signs of domestication (defined as the selective, accumulative effects of intelligence, manipulation and curtailing of environmental influences, and control by culture) more than from natural selection. I attribute reduction in cranial size, reduction in sexual dimorphism, preponderance of gracile morphological features, and enhanced hand-thumb dexterity to artificial selection, i.e., ultimately, to natural intelligence or naturalistic intelligent design.

I will not, however, attempt to resolve any single matter once and for all--and especially as concerns the highly ambitious (and what I consider scientifically presumptuous) goal of determining ultimate origins or first causes. Instead, I will leave that to the philosophers, theologians, and cosmologists. I will primarily be looking for the forces and events at work that provided impetus or catalyst to biological, neurological, and cultural progression upward in complexity--from the smallest of functions and organisms all the way up to smartest.

NOTES: Consult the web pages below for references by writers mentioned above to the term and/or subject content of "naturalistic intelligent design":

Warren Bergerson at http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000368.html

Glenn Shrom at http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/02/22/origins-of-intelligent-design-again/

Chris Cogan at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theevolutiondeceit/message/7486 and at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondebate/message/39811

Bill Schultz at www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html

Also, see more from CJYman at http://cjyman.blogspot.com/2008/02/sum-it-all-up.html