[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: [Mind and Brain] FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design, creationism, an

Apr 12, 2006 05:36 PM
by Cass Silva

Thus, as I see it, the only way the "creationist's" idea of a separate=20
omniscient. omnipotent, and omnipresent God can be easily falsified, is=20
by being=20
replaced by the logic of an alternative "intelligent design" process=20
similar to=20
the one explained and described by the ABC theory and model -- that=20
sees the=20
Cosmos as being both conscious and intelligent right from its initial=20
in the zero-point and spinergy of its primal singularity -- which=20
intact at the zero-point centers of all its fractally involved=20
coenergetic fields,=20
as well as in the consciousness of the ubiquitous zero-points spread=20
through all its evolutionary sub constructions (including us humans)=20
down to the=20
quantum particles themselves and the infinitely extended coenergetic=20
space between them.=20=20 wrote: Thought you might be interested in this...

In a message dated 3/1/06 4:36:49 PM, writes:

> Well, Intelligent Design is in actuality falsifiable. That is, the centra=
> postulate or claim in their argument is falsifiable, and indeed is proven=
> false every day.
How?   Where's the proof?   What is their central postulate that is proven=
falsifiable every day?   What kind of argument is that?   The only thing I=
disagree with is their basic assumption that the intelligence necessary to =
the universe is outside the cosmos itself and in a personal supernatural=20
"creator" -- who has no causative justification for its separate existence =
-- which=20
brings on an infinite regress, if we ask, where did "He" come from? :-)

Thus, as I see it, the only way the "creationist's" idea of a separate=20
omniscient. omnipotent, and omnipresent God can be easily falsified, is by =
replaced by the logic of an alternative "intelligent design" process simila=
r to=20
the one explained and described by the ABC theory and model -- that sees th=
Cosmos as being both conscious and intelligent right from its initial begin=
in the zero-point and spinergy of its primal singularity -- which remains=20
intact at the zero-point centers of all its fractally involved coenergetic =
as well as in the consciousness of the ubiquitous zero-points spread out=20
through all its evolutionary sub constructions (including us humans) down t=
o the=20
quantum particles themselves and the infinitely extended coenergetic "vacuu=
space between them.=20=20

Isn't our analogous intelligence and ability to use it in the design of eve=
possible structure, system or process imaginable by any human beings,=20
sufficient proof of that?   Why should our powers of creation be any differ=
ent from=20
the cosmic powers that created us out of its own substance, and in accord w=
its own fundamental laws of phenomenal existence?   Aren't we composed of t=
very same substance?   Aren't our intelligently designed structures depende=
on those very same laws?   Can our consciousness, will and intelligence,=20
then, be any different from those of the Cosmos?    So, where's a "separate=
in all that?=20

That's the only way that "creationism" can easily be blown into a cocked ha=
  All we have to do   is merge such an alternative theory of intelligent=20
design into a new paradigm of physics, scientifically proving it beyond a s=
of a doubt, link it with Darwin's theory of species evolution, and put it a=
-- together with the consolidated mathematics of both relativity and quantu=
physics merged with string theory -- in the new science textbooks.   That w=
have nothing to say about a supernatural outside creator.

>  The argument hinges on the claim that information can only be increased =
> design, and that random mutation cannot accomplish it. The random mutatio=
> aspect of the argument is a distraction from the central claim, concernin=
g the=20
> increase of information. That part is obviously falsifiable and daily=20
> occurences, at least in some part of the world, and in all parts that hav=
> refrigerators, which is most everywhere.
Not relevant.   I consider "intelligent information" such as the knowledge,=
ideas, designs and blueprints needed for the manufacture and assemblage of =
structure including the universe, as being fundamentally holographic wave=20
interference patterns carried or modulated on the surfaces of electromagnet=
fields (in any dimension of space), and accessible to consciousness (awaren=
thought, will, etc.).   So, what does that kind of intelligent "information=
have to do with dumb refrigeration cycles?   (Unless, we consider that the =
intelligent process that designed the refrigerator, also designed the unive=
and all its parts. :-)

The random mutation idea still is only an unfounded theory that, apparently=
has been even easier falsified by the expounders of "intelligent design" as=
substitute for Darwin's evolution using supposedly scientific arguments. =
Their biggest error is that they can't account for the consciousness of the=
of such intelligent information, and have to resort to a supernatural sourc=
e --=20
which then turns their intelligent design into creationism -- that has no=20
valid science of evolution in it at all.=20=20=20

Thus, the major thing wrong with Darwin's theory is chance mutation as the=
trigger for the valid ideas of species evolution and survival of the fittes=
The other problem linked to that, is the so called Darwin tree of life, tha=
is missing many links between different species stuck on the same branch=20
because of certain similarities in their DNA.   Accordingly, Darwin's evolu=
theory, by itself cannot explain the punctuated nature of evolution, nor ca=
its followers find such missing links to prove its theory of smooth species=
species evolution, or explain the separate yet identical adaptations within=
species to similar circumstances and ecosystems in remote locations.   How =
the supposed mutation of one animal in a species cross over to the same=20
species in a different location?   If we could explain that, we could also =
the million monkeys banging on typewriters eventually writing the Encyclope=
Brittanica. (That is, if they could live a few billion years or more and ha=
an equal light year length of paper.:-)=20

As for the change in thermodynamic information produced by a refrigerator..=
Such change is not accessible to consciousness, and therefore, cannot be us=
as an argument about information knowledgeably used for the consciously=20
intelligent design of anything.=20=20=20
>  =EF=BF=BD
>  Taken as an experiment, consider a body of pure water, laminar and=20
> homogeneous. It has a certain degree of information. Now take away enough=
> just cool it to below 0 degrees centigrade or 32 degrees Fareinheit, and =
> forms. That is an increase in information. The increase happened spontane=
> once threshold for ice formation was crossed. It did not happen by design=
. Add=20
> enough energy and bubbles form, another increase in information.
This is a straw-man argument since the information in the water and its=20
changes due to natural causes, has nothing to do with conscious intelligenc=
e --=20
analogous to human ability to intelligently utilize knowledge and, therefor=
create useful changes in design or structure... Unless you consider the wat=
itself also as being similarly conscious and intelligent. :-)=20=20=20

Unfortunately, all it can do in such processes of state relative informatio=
change, is follow natural laws of phase change due to external changes in=20
thermodynamic conditions -- of which it has no consciously directed control=
Besides, adding energy to any physical system -- whose condition or state d=
on the fundamental laws of electrodynamics and thermodynamics -- to achieve=
desirable result requires conscious thought and intent.   Can't our conscio=
will coupled with an intelligent thought visualization concentrated on an=20
internal or external change of our body state or condition do just that?   =
we not call that, "intelligent design" along with "intelligent=20

Therefore It appears that your water metaphor, has no reference to evolutio=
of a species to better fit into a particular environment, or to change towa=
a higher goal of intelligence... Although, it might have some relationship =
the initial evolution of the universe, and its phase changes (such as durin=
the fractal involution of its coenergetic fields) and their phase changes p=
to inflation and symmetry breaking.   But, this doesn't mean those same=20
processes can apply to the further evolution of the living and conscious un=
itself or any of its analogous and similarly living and conscious parts.  =

>  Actually that's what happens in the cosmology of high energy physics. It=
> called symmetry breaking and as the universe cooled from a high temperatu=
> with a more or less uniform distribution of fields and particles, to lowe=
> and lower temperatures, the particle types and forces split over and over=
> by the process of spontaneous symmetry breaking, each time achieving a=20
> substantial increase of information without any need for design.
Another straw-man.   You're talking about changes in physical property=20
information not information related to knowledge required for its intellige=
application toward intentional and purposeful changes in intelligent constr=
operation, or processes of any living system.
>  =EF=BF=BD
>  Finally, the process is reversed in a sense with the (probably=20
> spontaneousl) creation of elementary life forms and their development=EF=
=BF=BDwith energy from=20
> say the sun as input. In this case information is increased by the additi=
on of=20
> energy. Growth of these lifeforms first happens by splitting (RNA), and t=
> by birth and death(DNA) and finally a rapid increase in information is=20
> achieved by sexuality, where the DNA of parents are mixed to increase inf=
> generation by generation.
Total nonsense.   Another straw-man that doesn't account for the source of=
the intelligent code of the DNA in such supposedly spontaneously created li=
forms. Where's the evidence that energy from the sun coupled with loose ato=
floating in any medium can create anything?   And how do you account for th=
"spontaneous creation" of elementary life forms -- even if such a process, =
added high voltage electricity from lightening can assemble or synthesize a=
acids, let alone proteins and life forms composed of them -- without first=
explaining where the RNA and DNA came from?=20=20=20
>  =EF=BF=BD
>  Now it is possible to claim in all this that the=EF=BF=BD RNA and DNA=EF=
=BF=BDof the=20
> universe was by design. But different DNA codes may evolve on different p=
lanets, or=20
> in different galaxies. DNA need not be unique just as the laws of physics=
> need not be unique. But physics tells us that the constants of nature had=
 to be=20
> fine-tuned to produce life. So are the laws of symmetry (i.e., the laws o=
> physics) and symmetry breaking=EF=BF=BDdesigned?=EF=BF=BDIf so,=EF=BF=BDi=
t probably happened many=20
> generations of universes ago. But that's another story. The evolution of=
> universes from the beginning of time, also Darwinian.=20=20
Again, nothing more than vague assumptions that can't be verified by simple=
logical cause and effects processes that require organization and pre plann=
  The DNA code is a fundamental and mathematically consistent possibility=20
along with the fractal development of involved coenergetic fields of energy=
 of an=20
analogous electrical nature that radiate -- according to fundamental laws o=
cycles, symmetry, conservation, and all the other inviolate laws of pure=20
physics -- directly from the spinergy of the zero-point (singularity) of pr=
e cosmic=20
absolute space.   But to put that possibility into a code that can determin=
the structure of any being, including the universe and all the living being=
in it, would still require intelligence and willful intent, along with=20
imagination picturing the end design and construction that is to be symboli=
modeled in the DNA using that code.=20=20=20

Thus, there is no such thing as a DNA code that "evolves on different plane=
-- since that code basis, i.e., the coenergetic field structures of the=20
individual base molecules (but not its intelligent contrivance) is a built =
in given=20
due to the fundamental geometry's and topologies that is inherent in the=20
original spinergy along with the intelligent holographic information it car=
ries in=20
its vibrational wave interference patterns -- out of which everything in th=
cosmos is constructed intelligently by the consciousness inherent in every=
zero-point center of the initial coenergetic fields originating directly fr=
om the=20
Cosmic singularity down to the zero-point centers of consciousness of the=20
Sun, the Earth and all its structural parts and inhabitants, and their part=
etc., ad infinitum.   That is not to say that evolution then doesn't procee=
without constant intelligent tweaking, but does say that Darwin's theory, a=
accepted by reductive science, misses the boat by a country mile when such=
evolution is speculated to occur by chance mutation -- that can't show any =
logical chai
n of causality that makes any sense.=20

So, in spite of Dawkins and Dennett, there is no such thing as a blind=20
watchmaker.   Since, if the universe and all its planets and ecosystems can=
in a perfect place and with perfect conditions for mind to be expressed and=
self replicated in highly organized individual beings -- such as us human=20
animals with godlike minds -- the universe must have had access to that col=
mind and all its accumulated intelligence and knowledge right from the prim=
beginning at its singularity.   And, as far as I'm concerned, the logical=20
explanation of the ABC theory, without violating any fundamental scientific=
 laws of=20
nature, proves it logically and philosophically, if not scientifically in=20
accord with its understandable, yet materialistically limited rules.


>  =EF=BF=BD
>  Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pabloreyes33=20

> To:
> Sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:14:08 -0000
> Subject: [Mind and Brain] FASEB opposes using science classes to teach=20
> intelligent design, creationism, an
> FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design,=20
> creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs Editor's note: The Federati=
on of American=20
> Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has issued a statement support=
> evolution and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism=
> science classrooms. Supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numero=
> fields, evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the=20
> biological sciences. The FASEB statement affirms that intelligent design =
> creationism are not science. These concepts fail to meet the necessary re=
> for legitimate scientific theories: they are not based on direct observat=
> or experimentation nor do they generate testable predictions. The Federat=
> believes allowing the concepts of intelligent design and creationism into=
> science curricula will ultimately impair science education. "Evolution is=
> critical topic to science education and is the basis for understanding bi=
> and medicine," said FASEB President Bruce R. Bistrian. "The scientific=20
> community must rise to the challenge of defending science education again=
> initiatives that push for the teaching of creationism and intelligent des=
ign in=20
> classrooms," he said. "To not do so would be a grave disservice to our na=
> students."

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links


New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save =

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application