THE POTENTIAL OF NATURALISTIC INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE

Darwinists ignore other scientific fields’ definitions of intelligence in attributions of cause for any real-world action or event. Their genetic particle and cloud of nature attribution is an abstraction and construct while denying their assumption of the object of Nature writ large is a construct, too. Their criticisms against intelligent design and creation appear to be no different, viewing them as equivalent from one standard red herring view of all arguments made against any agent of cause or designer. Creationism and ID are loosely linked historically; perhaps that is why. However, pat arguments seem a bit simpleminded, childishly basic, and tantamount to lazy superficiality - putting history above any of the actual theoretical facts. DARWINISM CAN'T SEE OR EXPLAIN COMPLEXITY AND ITS INCREASE. In fact, I believe they are predicated on rubber-stamped arguments attacking all outside-the scope/realm-of-natural, material antecedents (anything appealing to super-normal cause looks the same to an evolutionist – as only religion). They're definitely never looking at intelligence as a cause in anything. However, naturalistic design is not so idealistically constrained. It is not limited to changes from designers alone or even primarily, in fact. The cause (which they cannot abstract enough to see) could simply be intelligent mechanisms in the environment or natural influences analogous to brains or neurons there (Lloyd Humprey's computational model of intelligence could be used here), goal-directed sensory-feedback loops and processes in the environment (Sternberg & Salter's goal-directed adaptive behavior intelligence model would suffice), or adaptive plant behavior (Howard Gardner's problem-solving definition of intelligence could model ID). Evolutionist don't have enough knowledge of AI or computational science to even begin to conceptualize and operationalize variables and constructs for detecting and measuring intelligence, much less attributing increasing complexity to it. It seems to me a statistical skew-based model of evolution (admittedly reductive and particle-based) is not even at the single-neuron level in evolution thinking. Evolution as Darwinists see it is lower at least in terms of intelligence concepts than that of an adding machine or abacus (or even stack of Legos). Still Lloyd Humprey's runaway model of computational intelligence could be used to describe or even encompass it, if evolutionists were FREE FROM FEAR AND BIGOTRY to do it. THEY AREN'T! Neither does naturalistic intelligence have to be limited to mere anthropomorphic models (that evolutionists employ for simile and metaphor in terminology and only at the turn-of-phrase level), traditional models or even precedents found in historical teleology or among any of the current ID views. Naturalistic ID or intelligent explanation of directed drift can be stated and independent of all teleological and historical precedents. It is a new enough notion that it is left to the future discretion of any developers and how they may choose to define its terms. And it is need PRECISELY SINCE EVOLUTIONISTS IGNORE INTELLIGENCE AT ALL LEVELS BENEATH SOCIO-CULTURAL EXPLANATIONS. For instance, the development of intelligence models elsewhere (in the non-evolution-related sciences) have not been so narrowly limited or severely curtailed as evolution proponents frequently state the case to be with ID/creationism. And any naturalistic intelligent design theory would most likely allow for more than the simple appeal to an intelligent organism. ID explanations have already been elaborated beyond the notions of a designer and creators, though not any creationist models in my observations. They must think there is never a need for an appeal to the design/intelligence model in science; that would ignore most of social science. Instead, they appeal to inanimate, incremental particles and force-conceptions (machine-oriented, systemic-functional models) that general materialistic causes will suffice in. I say evolution explanations are at times woefully unempirical (non-predictive and esoteric) and in some cases completely incomplete and inadequate functional mechanizations (as discussed below regarding the trends in increased biological complexity and intelligence as shown developed and elaborated on by the fossil record). You use intelligence AS NO APPEAL. DARWINISTS DON'T ATTRIBUTE CAUSE TO ANYTHING BUT FORCE AND PARTICLE EXPLANATIONS. In certain cases, two levels of explanations could both be right. Intelligence was behind a change, though, it can only be seen empirically in its effects. But it is around observable in constructs. You say this of nature as if it were an object and not abstraction. In fact, your belief and consummate appeal to naturalism as a panacea obviates any chance at making an appeal to idealism with a stated admission of your use of abstraction (such as nature and intelligence are as explanatory constructs). In some cases, we could even both be right; such is the case with behavioristic and phenomenological interpretations of behavior in psychology. It is both intelligence-guided and physical in representation. And naturalistic intelligence design/influence is exclusively natural-materialistic. You won't even hear of it!!! Your field ignores intelligent effect as an explanation; it is highly reductive of phenomena; at times exclusively particlistic. However, the real point I think they are missing in this relationship is that animate causes are materialistic natural causes, too. And the real materialistic choice at the organism's level I think is between random, environmentally-adaptive nudges/remnant-skewed statistical influences and directionally correlated, coordinated forces (more sensory-based and exploitive ones, thus animate). Neither explanation violates science's natural-materialistic paradigm. Thus I think the old ID "goddidit" arguments don't apply to naturalistic design; certainly not in the same way as they do to the Discovery Institute's form of nonmaterialistic ID. Both biological systems and organic functions can be viewed at purely inanimate, atomistic, self-integrating levels or at animate, more functional-systemic ones. And any adaptive or augmenting sensory feedback system or process in or around an organism or even in the environment would count as such (goal-directed, adaptive intelligence, as defined by Sternberg and Salter). And biological succession of forms over time has included trends toward greater integration and complexity, and increased intelligence in forms. One-celled organisms have purportedly led directly to the much the more complex and goal-directed organisms of today. THIS IS BUILT INTO THE NATURE OF ORGANISMS IN NATURALISTIC INTELLIGENT DESIGN as it happens consistently and by necessity. Increased complexity I see as a general intelligence pattern; even a theme. In time, hope or faith in survival could be the watershed - the actual driving and directing cause. And I think natural selection combined with mutations is a far too limited, general, seasonally based, and vague as a paired-mechanism; it is too limited a steering notion to explain such a very large directional weight in the fossil record pattern/skew alone. MultI-universe or so-called multiverse theory would explain such direction-accumulating aggregate patterns better if we have to dispense with observed, measurable causes and rely on statistical models alone (as we do with evolution explanations). Saying that greater complexity and intelligence are more adaptive simply begs the question I think. Historically speaking, such has simply been assumed on the basis of the argument of necessity and not actually demonstrated with evidence. Do bacteria get smarter or more goal-directed over time? Where's the evidence for any step up in their functional complexity? Some critics say ID gives a supernatural designer a blank check. I see atomistic and inanimate explanations of natural-materialistic cause giving natural selection a blank check. Neither can be empirically demonstrated currently to be a universal cause, especially for the increasing overall patterns of diversity and greater systemic integration in biological life. Yet natural selection is treated as the motley, universal cause of biology. You also said early on that a designer "could have done anything whatever -- leaving no means of distinguishing what it allegedly did from anything that might have happened but for which it was not responsible." It appears to me that abiogenesis has no trace evidence either, or any hope for finding such. It has a similar empirical-accountability deficiency. Some things in either theory (the theory of evolution or naturalistic ID as presented here) as a result probably have to be assumed rather than get left alone or ignored.. The rampant feature of rather bare, superficial and subjective criticisms in the creation vs. evolution debate in and of itself makes neither theory less or more scientific. Instead, it reduces considerations here to conceptions rather subjective, guttural and purely emotional. IN OTHER WORDS, DARWINISM DOES NOT HAVE THE CONCEPTUAL, EPISTEMOLOGICAL OR METHODOLOGICAL EXPERTISE IN ITS SPITEFUL BIGOTRY TO ENGAGE IN EXPERT DISCUSSIONS WITH METHODOLOGISTS IN THESE MATTERS. Darwinists typically as a consequence choose rather to cower apart and independent from any discussion of such matters. They as a group feign, deign, categorically ignore, evade critiques, and hide their lack of causal relationships and variable operation rather than to enter into active, pointed methodological discussions of the needs of hypothesis-based science in natural selection. They have no cause on multiple fronts. THEY ARE LOST IN DENIAL, STANDARDS FEINT AND TOPICAL EVASION, AND INTELLIGENCE-BASED ATTRIBUTIONS IN COMPLEX PHENOMENA ARE COMPLETELY LOST THEM.