CREATOR HYPOTHESIS - Version #10

[Science101]

Note:

Links at end explain the "intelligence" to be understood, to fully understand the hypothesis. But you can do it! It is to be read!!

Philosophical is underlined. No "Creator in gaps".

This hypothesis does NOT require evolutionary theory to be presented, either pro or con. In this way there is no evolution bashing, or evolution promoting.

Science explains how things work. Therefore a "Creator Hypothesis" must explain how the "Creator" works using repeatable empirical evidence scientists can verify, or it's not science. This is what a real "Creator Hypothesis" looks like. It is unfinished, for it to be most educational.

This is meant to be an educational challenge. In time publishable because it's honest and presents an interesting way to see what ID type thinking looks like when it's in the form of a hypothesis. At the same time get help strengthening the classroom appropriate intelligence science that this hypothesis must contain, from Creationists. We teach each other, even if that sounds impossible. On computer forums and email they explain what they are looking for and it turns into science now including this hypothesis. That is probably the best way to explain what this is, and why the name is in this case appropriate.

We are to provide a learning environment where all can gel, on something fun to work on, that does not even need Darwin to explain. Something in common, to build upon, as we together teach each other how to have fun with science. Sometimes in forum classrooms where we take turns being student and teacher.

------------------------------------------------------------

CREATOR HYPOTHESIS - Version #10

------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

We have faith in an intelligent entity we shall call "creator" which science can only evidence that is firmly grounded in reason and can stand on it's own scientific merit. Here we evidence an entity we shall call "creator" which works using forces as a scientifically verifiable intelligence that exist in matter.

------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

We understand that the name of this hypothesis is very suggestive. If a little known deity makes a "Gaia Hypothesis" then it would be no problem. If a made up deity makes a "Scio Hypothesis" then it is humorous but still scientific enough of a name for a hypothesis. But a "Creator Hypothesis" really gets everyone's attention. Even if the word is similarly used. There is no other word which applies to an intelligent system on the scale of atoms to universe where conscious life is one of the emergent processes. Even with it all down to the science it's still the entity made up of forces that "Created" us. A "Creator".

Since it is proving to be possible to through science understand our origins, we can infer that the creation of life and thus the "Creator" is not (at least in part) outside the universe. If the "Creator" and our creation were unknowable, then the origin-of-life science we now have, could not exist.

The "supernatural" is hereby defined as where science ends, and the unknown begins. Until Ben Franklin demonstrated to all that lightning is an electrical force, the supernatural was used to explain it as wrath by a Creator upon sinners. In the same way, this hypothesis is to explain emergence of human intelligence, from the perspective of intelligence, that exists in molecules.

Accepting that this "Creator" is whatever science leads to, makes all science, only evidence for it. Especially when where we came from is explained, with science that connects us to intelligence in matter itself, and the miraculous "Poof!" of self-assembly.

------------------------------------------------------------

METHODS

A computer model(1) using the guess/memory mechanism (also found in evolution) demonstrates a powerful layered intelligence that exists in matter.

Showing of a single interconnected intelligent system that is first evidenced as a "truth table" symbolic representation of matter that extends into the subatomic.

------------------------------------------------------------

DESCRIPTION

(bring science in below references into here)

------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION


Atoms exhibit behavior which can be shown using "Truth Tables". Molecules exhibit "Molecular Intelligence"(7). Cells exhibit "Cellular Intelligence"(8). Multicellular organisms sometimes exhibit brain produced intelligence as is studied by neuroscience.

Intelligence does not necessarily need to be conscious to exist. Therefore it is possible to describe "Intelligence" to its most rudimentary beginning, in matter, from which higher levels of intelligence emerge.

We don't normally see verbal communication being so similar to cellular intelligence. But it interconnects us the same way. We are then much like one cell in a colony moving in response to environment, the criteria for an intelligent system. For example look down from space at a Florida shoreline just before a hurricane hits and the colony of humans that cover the surface move away from the ocean before it even arrives then the mass goes back when conditions are again favorable. We here see a response to broadcast signals on radio and TV warning of approaching danger.

If there was a big bang then there are possibilities for us to consider. Either it was a "natural" event with little or no significance to this hypothesis. The creator is whatever caused it. Or this is a cycle that the entity we call Creator is itself a part of. In the latter case the Creator expanded with the universe or is larger than it. We're inside the expansion. Thus we would here be one with the creator and/or its creation.

------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSIONS

Studying intelligence down to the molecular level is a very academic, useful science.(1,5,6,7) The known levels are atom-molecule-cell-organism-biosphere.(2)


Evolution can be viewed from the perspective of intelligence.

There could be a collective consciousness formed at more than just the organism level, but we don't know how consciousness works so more science is expected.

Abiogenesis is dependant of forces.(3,4)

Science is showing that we can in time understand how we were "Created" making it possible to scientifically understand this entity called "Creator".

Due to the search for what created us being far from over it can probably keep improving forever by adding yet to be discovered science that belongs here. Being more valuable forever unfinished, is further evidence that all science is only evidence of a "Creator", be it some may consider that more of a philosophical question.

This hypothesis predicts that the philosophical possibility that science can only evidence a "Creator" is true. (see all but 20)

Amen...(20)

------------------------------------------------------------

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Symbiosis (Bio, Cleveland-ID) review-intro, Cletus77 (IDKWTFIGO, MassLive-Rel) review discussion, Sebastian Dalman (paleo, Massachusetts) hypothesis paper structuring lesson, Mensaman (Sci, Al-Rel) review concept, Roytheman (ID, Syracuse-Rel) for first sentence framework, hexidecimal (Sci, PennLive-Rel) review version #1, Kansas Citizens For Science (Sci, Kansas) forum, PhysOrg Evo/Cre forum, Dan Beyer (KCFS) needed ref. 11, .

------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES

1) "Intelligence 101 + Free Intelligence Detection Lab"

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=692


2) "Science To Believe In"

http://members.aol.com/fromscience/


3) Origin of life is more the result of "forces" than "random accident" as shown in this experiment that demonstrates how cell membranes self-assemble.

http://members.aol.com/fromscience/e...lmembrane.html


4) NSTA members: "Demonstrating the Self-Assembly of the Cell Membrane"

http://www.nsta.org/store/product_de...st07_074_07_72


5) Interesting Cell Intelligence presentation:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-...r/cellint0.htm


6) Video that William Dembski also sees as slightly intelligent molecule workers building a city, that everyone has to see at least a few times till they can picture it.

http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/an...erlife_lo.html

Higher resolutions and videos:

http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/media.html



7) Molecular Nanobiointelligence Computers, National Cancer Center, June 21, 2005, Byoung-Tak Zhang, Center for Bioinformation Technology (CBIT) & Biointelligence Laboratory, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University

http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses/4ai06f/NCC2005.pdf


8) Synthesizing cellular intelligence and artificial intelligence for bioprocesses, P.R. Patnaik, Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh-160 036, India

http://www.aseanbiotechnology.info/A...t/21018478.pdf


9) Intelligence Generator computer model was adapted from the book (robot made virtual): Heiserman, D. L., How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, TAB Books, Inc., 1979.


10) Photodriven reduction and oxidation reactions on colloidal semiconductor particles: Implications for prebiotic synthesis Xiang V. Zhang a, Shelby P. Ellery a, Cynthia M. Friend a,b, Heinrich D. Holland c, F.M. Michel d, Martin A.A. Schoonen d, Scot T. Martin a,∗

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environm...Z_JPP_2007.pdf


11) Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry
Xiang V. Zhang and Scot T. Martin*
DiVision of Engineering and Applied Sciences, HarVard UniVersity, Cambridge, Massachusetts

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.c.../ja066103k.pdf


12) Clays May Have Aided Formation of Primordial Cells

http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak3.html


20) Note: "Amen" is not part of the science but see "SUNDAY SERMON - CREATIVE FORCE".

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=186

:D

[Trumble]

An interesting project but ultimately, I suspect, a futile one because it is based on a fundamental catagory mistake.

Atoms exhibit behavior which can be shown using "Truth Tables". Molecules exhibit "Molecular Intelligence"(7). Cells exhibit "Cellular Intelligence"(8). Multicellular organisms sometimes exhibit brain produced intelligence as is studied by neuroscience.

It seems you are assuming that just because a certain word is used in each case it refers to the same thing each time. But "intelligence" is not the same as intelligence.. the inverted commas are there for a reason. Neither "molecular intelligence" nor "cellular intelligence" have much resemblance to intelligence as we understand it in human beings. We have no idea how any of those might relate to the intelligence of God (if there is one). At best such a computer model might identify patterns that could be interpreted as potentially resulting from intelligent behaviour, but it could not identify intelligence itself nor preclude other possibilities. And that's assuming the model is sound, and I don't see how you could possibly ever demonstrate that it is.

Intelligence does not necessarily need to be conscious to exist. Therefore it is possible to describe "Intelligence" to its most rudimentary beginning, in matter, from which higher levels of intelligence emerge.

I don't follow that at all. Again, you are assuming that all those types of intelligence are the same thing, albeit perhaps at different stages of development. They are not. Whether intelligence requires conciousness depends purely on how you define intelligence. As the intelligence you are seeking is ultimately that of God, whom I assume you believe to be concious, how is that relevant? We have little enough idea what intelligence actually is in people, let alone God.

[Science101]

Hi Trumble! I have been meaning to say that I have been loving your educated responses in the Creationism related threads. You are definitely a skeptic. One heck of a challenge for this concept.

An interesting project but ultimately, I suspect, a futile one because it is based on a fundamental catagory mistake.

I was with intelligence science since before there were PC's. It's one of my strongest subjects. The hypothesis is not futile at all. Think positive!

It seems you are assuming that just because a certain word is used in each case it refers to the same thing each time.

In this link I show "Molecular Intelligence" (MI) and "Cellular Intelligence" (CI) being used in academia to help show how the words are used by scientists.

1) "Intelligence 101 + Free Intelligence Detection Lab"

http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=692

From there can google papers and power point presentations galore on intelligence science. Like the one about the new DNA powered superfast computers.

Neither "molecular intelligence" nor "cellular intelligence" have much resemblance to intelligence as we understand it in human beings.

I agree. That's "Human Intelligence" (HI :D) which is characterized by complex language, culture, children instinctually pointing at objects their attention is focused on, and a few other things.

I know how in science it is important to use very specific wording. So I put that in the first link in the references so that whoever studies it will know how scientists now use terms.

We have no idea how any of those might relate to the intelligence of God (if there is one).

That's why I'm describing what has never been described like this before. Does not at this point get us all the way to where we want to go, but gets us further on down the path that goes there.

At best such a computer model might identify patterns that could be interpreted as potentially resulting from intelligent behaviour, but it could not identify intelligence itself nor preclude other possibilities. And that's assuming the model is sound, and I don't see how you could possibly ever demonstrate that it is.

I also start off with downloadable software that allows the modeling of something that is actually very intelligent for such a small amount of memory space. The beginning of new models, done by others who saw that. Idea is to model matter in terms of its intelligence, as opposed to just the physics. Lot of unfinished work including a program that forms membranes by learning Lennard-Jones behavior. Could later distribute molecules to internet participants so they become a part of a weblife cell or molecule.

The hypothesis has in it, very productive science.

I don't follow that at all. Again, you are assuming that all those types of intelligence are the same thing, albeit perhaps at different stages of development.

Look at how matter/energy builds intelligence:

? makes atom, atoms make molecule, molecules make cell, cells make organ, organs make organism, organisms make biosphere, biosphere makes ?.

Looking at it this way, helps simplify the problem. There are two unknowns on either side of an order that goes into and out of matter. Now have that all sorted out. Next step is figure out what is happening where we can't see with our eyes, in the molecular realm.

Each kind of intelligence is very different from the others. You can get the HI at the organism level. But at molecule it's MI. And cell CI. And each organ be it a bone or brain has a different intelligence, when isolated from the rest.

As the intelligence you are seeking is ultimately that of God, whom I assume you believe to be concious, how is that relevant? We have little enough idea what intelligence actually is in people, let alone God.

I can't say if the Creator is conscious or not. Could be, through us, or some other way. Important thing for the hypothesis is that it's like the study the brain with neuroscience to understand how the intelligence works. Don't need to explain how the consciousness works, for the intelligence based science to be valid.

This is the closest "Creation Science" has ever been, to real science. A score that has Creationists all happy. And you saw how much required learning is in the References. Connection to real science, through the hypothesis that speaks for them to science.

This also came from religion forums, not a lab in some university. Why the Acknowledgments is not your usual format. The thought in the Abstract came from a Creationist. I only translated what they said into the language of science. So the hypothesis has people waving back, in it. But you can't see them. Which is a whole other layer of intelligence hidden in the wording of the hypothesis. An ordinary book or science paper can't do that.

One thing for sure is following the vesicle filled mystery Muhammad started, wherever it leads, leads to learning we never imagined possible. Still have the faith we started with, just have science experiments and a Creator Hypothesis to go with it too.


Your questioning the hypothesis helped explain more detail. Thanks for the input Trumble! Let me know what else might seem out of place. I value your opinion.