Theory of Intelligent Design - by Gary Gaulin

[Science101]

Hi again! In case you remember me from past threads where we discussed issues pertaining to "evolutionary theory" and a theory of my own that Prophet Muhammad would approve of too, I have been working on it ever since and had to return to show how it improved. Because of this being a fully coherent theory that stays within bounds of science educators in at least the United States can legally teach this one, and it's doing well considering the amount of protest against it that is largely directed against the Discovery Institute but since I am not from there or approved of what got people in trouble with what they had most scientists do not mind science teachers explaining the origin of life this way in their science classrooms. To make it easier to continually update and easy for teachers to use, it is now in a Microsoft Word document format at the link below the introduction, where you will find the most recent version replacing earlier ones.

Gary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theory of Intelligent Design

By Gary S. Gaulin
Last enhancement July 8, 2011

Introduction
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in multiple levels of unique organization who sum to produce an emergent self-similar biological entity behaviorally in their own image, likeness. Nonrandom behavior of matter is here the “behavioral cause” of molecular intelligence, which is in turn the “intelligent cause” of cellular intelligence, which is in turn the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence, which is in turn the intelligent cause of collective intelligence. In this way human male and female gender itself has an “intelligent cause” from a simpler cellular male and female gender, which has an intelligent cause from an even simpler two-allele molecular replication process which has a “behavioral cause” from matter which we are ultimately an expression of. In engineered designs, intelligent cause is from the intelligent entities that produce them.

The biological operational definition of intelligence (where at all levels intelligence comes from) is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) controlled sensory-addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions. At the cellular level our cells can sense what is needed thus differentiated into muscle cells and neurons to control them which behaviorally combined to produce a moving organism with muscle organs made of many cells pulling and brain organ that intelligently coordinates their motion. At all levels entities who do not serve a useful purpose in their society do poorly among those who can connect together a certain way so that the needs of each are being met. Whether created from molecules or cells or organs or organisms, intelligence must on their own find a place where they serve a useful purpose in their collective society.

Computer models show this common to all levels intelligence mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements. (1) Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle). (2) Sensory addressable memory to store successful motor actions to be taken in response to sensed environmental conditions. (3) Sensory feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken here called “confidence”. (4) A guess mechanism to try a new action. Good guesses as in crossover exchange safely controls design variation to produce offspring each different from each other (not clones) and gene level recombination of small conserved domains which are the nuts and bolts and motor parts of complex molecular machinery that all together keep living things alive.

From the perspective of intelligence, its genome is not a sewing "pattern" or “blueprint” showing each part and where each new cell that divides out must go and what to differentiate into each gene is learned response data for the next generation to try in response to sensed environmental conditions. In the social amoeba (slime molds) along with a self-replicating centrosomal control system for migration behavior their genome encodes for extremely adaptable cells which require no pattern to achieve their final form. Depending on conditions, in the process of each meeting their needs these social cells intuitively work together to form streaming or solid multicellular colonies of various designs. In human learning, newly produced social stem cells of the brain form new synaptic encoded neural networks. In each human social cell its epigenetically controlled genome greatly changes its gene expression in response to learning to serve a useful purpose, in their highly specialized cellular society. Where things go wrong (such as in primitive cancer-cell behavior) some cells can refuse to play by the same rules as the other cells, then they all suffer.

Successful designs remain in the collective molecular (RNA/DNA) memory of their population to keep going the billions year old cycle of life learning process which replicates previous contents of memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work a little better for us. Resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

In our lineage is a chromosomal Adam and Eve from a population of beings who had at least a single copy/allele of the chromosome fusion unique to the human genome design. In such speciation events there is a first couple, which this theory will explain.

Each of us and all living things are an intelligent design from multiple levels of intelligence where at our molecular level has a memory with recall as old as life itself, powered by behavioral cause that is at least as old as the universe(s) we are intelligently conscious of. This causation is explained through physics, chemistry, biology, and other sciences that search for a way to explain how living things and our universe were created. This theory of intelligent design connects current knowledge to become a fully deterministic explanation for the origin of all intelligent/living things, where everything happens for a reason, and we were all meant to be…

Rest of theory here, currently 53 pages:
http://sites.google.com/site/intelli...gentDesign.doc

[Amigo]

Wow, wow, wow :)
You must be Dr. Noonien Soong! Any progress on the emotional ship so we can keep Lieutnant Commander Data laughing without worring that he would loose control of his emotions? :D

Well, a more serious question though. I noticed you covered the origin of the Male and Female. Could you explain the logics of the female monthly periods? I mean, I know how it happens, but how is that 'intelligent design'?...Wouldn't life be better if they didn't have to bleed? I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly but perhaps you will see what I am trying to say.


Thanks

[Science101]

Well, a more serious question though. I noticed you covered the origin of the Male and Female. Could you explain the logics of the female monthly periods? I mean, I know how it happens, but how is that 'intelligent design'?...Wouldn't life be better if they didn't have to bleed? I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly but perhaps you will see what I am trying to say.

Thanks

Hi Amigo! To that one the theory predicts all have to take the good with the bad for now. But it's possible that the molecular and cellular intelligence levels will eventually solve that problem for those levels down there too that has so many washed away but it still works real good for making more babies and there at least gives a break from that for some months, and reward at the end. :D

I just had a very good question that required me to briefly explain what all the pages of science theory add up to for science and religion, and since many in this forum would likely rather just see that then have to piece it together from the science classroom material that only has what can be scientifically evidenced and tested I made sure to make it for here too.

I would like to add all thoughts you might have to make it better with just a few words here or there. Can then bring it back to the still ongoing Kansas public schools "fair hearing" for the "Theory of Intelligent Design" and want to give credit to you for your peer-review of the following or any help to even more show why Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Jesus always walked together through time, and still are. It would not shock anyone, they're used to me giving both equal time.

This is at least much much better than the old scientific paradigm, where anything from religion somehow having basis in fact has to be immediately labeled as pseudoscience then dismissed, expelled, etc.. It starts with the question that came from a Kansas educator who is on their science standards committee who hates Intelligent Design but has to take this one seriously. In their own way helped make it possible, by well arguing from the other side, so we have to give them credit for this interesting challenge that all here are welcomed to have fun helping change the "Western Science" paradigm to something more "Eastern".

This is what now needs to be better answered, then sent back to their electronic desk again even better than this update I so far:

Do the properties and entities that emerge from the processes of physics and chemistry (such as salt, or a star, or a planet, or a rock) require an intelligent cause as part of their explanation?

Can you answer this question with a yes or no,..?

Scripture holds that our Creator spoke matter into existence with just a whisper, that science indicates then made a BIG BANG that aggregated as explained in Genesis into the stars and our planet that had water and so forth. And considering its age the amount it is off it's a better accuracy level than the average for science papers and other literature including Charles Darwin's rudimentary thoughts that only explained a small amount of a problem that he could at least begin to observe here on Earth about things changing over time, as did Muslims some 1000 years ago in the "Book of Animals".

Later came the living things, as science has also found plenty of evidence for. So in both scripture and science, things with intelligence came well after salt, stars, planets, and the rocks that were effortlessly banged into existence. It's the living things like us that require intelligence at a level or levels that we cannot see. The references from the theory included below show that science is very much evidencing that is true, and number [2] is to show what I have already eventually published to science teachers so ones who did not know get to see that important one to know about, self-assembly where it's like "Poof!" and it's there, not at all something that evolves.

When any sustained oscillation wave reaches its 0 point (or in cosmology "singularity") it is then seemingly gone but 100% of the wave energy is still there, all set to come back again because that is the "behavior" of the system that creates it, in a religious sense our Creator can with just to us a spoken whisper energy into and out of existence without even having to stop and think what it wants to do next "intelligence", it's consciousness and other things in addition to intelligence that makes it possible to go through a singularity with us still in it even though it looks like we and all creation is gone after going through again. With there being "dark matter" and other mysteries the Creator can also be outside of the universe at the same time, but the theory can not (at least yet) make a prediction either way on that question.

We can be 100% certain that it took an enormous amount of molecular and cellular (and yet to be discovered) intelligence to bring living things we see to life, both in us and around us. And where a cyclical model of the universe is true this is not a Creator that floated around in darkness for trillions of years wondering what to do next to pass the time away. A Creator creates, and can over and over and over again in a way that eternity does not ever have to get boring, for any of us. Roughly explained in simple mathematics and electronics, it’s like a 3 simultaneous waves (producing 3D) with positive and negative cycle where with a whisper a Creator takes all the intelligence in all the universe along with what makes us conscious through the singularity to begin the next phase of our eternal existence, together...

[2] G. Gaulin, Demonstrating the Self-Assembly of the Cell Membrane, NSTA -The Science teacher, 10/1/2007
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_de...st07_074_07_72
Prior version, open access, excuse any education advertisment that might appear:
http://www.lessonplanspage.com/Scien...periment68.htm

[6] Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Robert Laughlin Rea, "Cell Intelligence", Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-...r/cellint0.htm

[8] 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
Publications on Molecular Intelligence
http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Publications/pub_mi.html

[9] 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

[22] Social Learning Theory, from notes on Ormond's Human Learning, Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~Lynda_abbot/Social.html

[25] Colin Barras, Smart amoebas reveal origins of primitive intelligence, New Scientist, 16:11 29 October 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15068

[31] Slime moulds bet the farm on survival - life - 19 January 2011 - New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=environment
Primitive agriculture in a social amoeba, Debra A. Brock, Tracy E. Douglas, David C. Queller & Joan E. Strassmann
Nature, Volume: 469, Pages: 393–396, 20 January 2011, doi:10.1038/nature09668
Closed Access - Abstract
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture09668.html

[32] Bonnie Bassler on how bacteria talk, Video on TED
http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bass...mmunicate.html

[36] Internal sensing machinery directs the activity of the regulatory network in Escherichia coli
Agustino Martinez-Antonio, Sarath Chandra Janga, Heladia Salgado & Julio Collado-Vides
http://regulondb.ccg.unam.mx/CellSensing.jsp

There is still much more to it than that, but this at least shows it's possible for at least this theory to exist, within the rules of their own science. That there alone, changes many things that were once thought impossible to even begin to challenge.

[Amigo]

Hi Amigo! To that one the theory predicts all have to take the good with the bad for now. But it's possible that the molecular and cellular intelligence levels will eventually solve that problem for those levels down there too that has so many washed away but it still works real good for making more babies and there at least gives a break from that for some months, and reward at the end.

Yeah, that's what I find quite interesting; that there is a 'break' when there is babies generally...
Also, where do 'problems' come from?
How is it that there are problems that they will have to solve? who/what causes the problems and what solve them exactly?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Science101]

Yeah, that's what I find quite interesting; that there is a 'break' when there is babies generally...
Also, where do 'problems' come from?
How is it that there are problems that they will have to solve? who/what causes the problems and what solve them exactly?

Amigo, I explain science, and you are now asking a religious philosophical question. You here started with the conclusion that our design must be flawless and perfect for there to be such a thing as intelligent cause, and that conclusion is from your religion.

All I can find to say here, is that you will first need to explain why the intelligence that created you has to be more like a Santa Claus that spends all year making you happy. Making babies is simply icky-messy to begin with, but that's the way it is and I cannot change that.

[Amigo]

Amigo, I explain science, and you are now asking a religious philosophical question. You here started with the conclusion that our design must be flawless and perfect for there to be such a thing as intelligent cause, and that conclusion is from your religion.

All I can find to say here, is that you will first need to explain why the intelligence that created you has to be more like a Santa Claus that spends all year making you happy. Making babies is simply icky-messy to begin with, but that's the way it is and I cannot change that.

I think I was coming from the logical assumption that intelligence produce intelligible things, therefore, the why of things cam be understood. Perhaps I pointed out a domain of intelligence where science can not reach?

[Science101]

I think I was coming from the logical assumption that intelligence produce intelligible things, therefore, the why of things cam be understood. Perhaps I pointed out a domain of intelligence where science can not reach?

Just like Prophet Muhammad I believe that the study of how living things work (science) allows us to know our Creator, as opposed to being beyond science to better understand. Logically speaking, if we were not in some way created then none of us would exist. Therefore, the only question that there is, is how our Creator works.

Phrases like "natural processes" which attempt to draw a line between us and our Creator have no real meaning. In science something either exists or it does not, as a result all that exists is a "natural process" with there being no such thing in science as a "supernatural process" there are only processes which are not yet explainable in a scientific way. After science explains something once thought to be a supernatural process it becomes understood as a natural process, but that does not change the fact that we were somehow created, are conscious of existing, and there is an "intelligent cause" from matter that we have just begun to understand. The more you know about how it works, the more fascinating creation becomes.

[Trumble]

Logically speaking, if we were not in some way created then none of us would exist.

Agreed, accepting the definition of create as "to cause to exist, bring into being" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/create).

Therefore, the only question that there is, is how our Creator works.

What 'logic' gets you from the plural to the single? The obvious answer as to what creates each of us, accepting the above definition, are our parents. As they are equally obviously not what you refer to as 'our Creator', you are obviously using the word 'create(d)' in a different way. Unless you specify what that is it is impossible to assess your argument.

After science explains something once thought to be a supernatural process it becomes understood as a natural process, but that does not change the fact that we were somehow created, are conscious of existing, and there is an "intelligent cause" from matter that we have just begun to understand.

The last is an unsupported claim or assumption, not a fact, and yet the whole theory you present is constructed around it; that and the jump - somehow - to design from intelligence. No other such claim in any other field of science would be presented as any more than the wildest hypothesis let alone be taught to children as science. Why do you believe there should be an exception in this case?

[Science101]

Hi Trumble, good to see you still here too.

You are though just repeating what you heard others say about arguments against Modern Evolutionary Synthesis which I agree was not a coherent "Theory of Intelligent Design" it was an argument against another theory. That is why it failed in Kansas then Dover, PA.

This is a very serious theory. Here is a section added yesterday that explain the simple logic that makes "intelligent cause" relatively simple to explain:

Levels of Intelligence

The structure of our brain changes at the cellular level in response to what we sense/learn at the multicellular level. For example, a taxi driver has a larger than average hypothalamus from storing the spatial maps that their job requires. We are unaware of these changes, but at the cellular level our brain is changing in response to what we sense and learn.

Likewise, the structure of our cells also change at the molecular genetic level in response to what they sense and learn. For example, stem cells can differentiate into one of many possible types of cells depending on what their job requires. Stem cells would not be aware of these changes, but at the molecular level our cells are changing in response to what they sense/learn. Since cells replicate by division of their genome, these changes are inherited in the next generation of cells.

We now have the three primary levels of biological intelligence required for theory, a one level to the next causation where one is the intelligent cause of the other.

(1) Molecular Intelligence
(2) Cellular Intelligence
(3) Multicellular Intelligence

These can be further subdivided according to whether it is a single molecule system, for example self-replicating RNA, which is here Unimolecular Intelligence. Although not yet very well understood and too early to fully qualify as intelligence, what is currently known about animal cell centrosomes are meeting the four requirements as a self-contained molecular intelligence system here called Centrosomal Intelligence.

For scientific experiments to model intelligent systems we must also include computer algorithm produced Algorithmic Intelligence. Where electronic components are connected to form the four requirement circuit we have Electronic Intelligence useful for robotics.

To prove this theory false you will need scientific evidence to the contrary of what is stated above and I already know that none exists. Therefore, this is a coherent scientific theory, regardless of what others say about it, or the fact that some find it religiously significant.

[Ali Mujahidin]

:sl:

Is it logical that something finite like intelligence can be used to explain something infinite like Allah? WaLLahu aklam.

[Science101]

:sl:

Is it logical that something finite like intelligence can be used to explain something infinite like Allah? WaLLahu aklam.

Thanks for mentioning that ThisOldMan! After following the evidence where it leads, it led to a whole other theory being needed that can account for behavior of matter and source of consciousness. Here is the conclusion section where there is the transition from "intelligence" to a "behavior" that exists everywhere in the known universe:

Conclusion

In following intelligent causation through science this theory took us along the path through science where "intelligence" goes, where we then arrive at nonrandom subatomic behavior that may be where "conscious awareness" is from, which is in addition to our intelligence (not required for intelligence to exist). Science is here advanced by theory that explains "intelligent cause", which brings us to an eternal as the universe(s) "behavioral cause" that powers atoms on up to us who are somehow conscious from this.

Now that we have made it this far we now need theory to better explain this "behavioral cause", and can hereby premise a "Theory of Behavioral Design" to develop separately to work with and be in-spirit with this one, as such:

The theory of behavioral design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by a behavioral cause.

The Theory of Behavioral Design must be fully deterministic with no unguided forces to explain features of atoms which combine to produce molecules to produce living intelligent things to help explain how consciousness relates to intelligence that can exist without being conscious of itself, yet it is.

Unlike calculus driven "quantum theory" this behavioral theory has a computer model algorithm to run in the many cores of a parallel computer system to produce molecular intelligence (or simpler emergent system) but not necessarily by attempting to vector atomic dynamics into 3D coordinates as per Schrodinger's equation and others.

http://sites.google.com/site/intelli...oralDesign.doc

As you can see I had to conclude much the same way as you did. Explaining "intelligent cause" led to an even bigger mystery, for future generations to follow the evidence where that leads, which may also possibly lead to the need for another theory to go further.

It seems as though our Creator/Allah does not need to be intelligent in the same way we are, and can possibly experience our intelligent thoughts through consciousness that we can feel but is not needed for us to be intelligent. What do you think?