INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY – CREATIONISM VS. EVOLUTION AND THE WORLD'S THREE MOST IMPORTANT YET MOST DISBELIEVED EVENTS
Chapter 6. Intelligence, Consciousness and Thoughts Versus Evolution
Evolutionists believe that somehow atoms came together to create consciousness and thoughts. To believers in Intelligent Design, it is obvious that intelligence can only be the result of an Intelligent Creator. This is one of the major differences between evolution vs. creation science.
The mostly atheistic scientists have a wonderful web site, http://www.edge.org that I love to read. With the exception of the wild string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other theoretical and unproven nonsense, I find it erudite, stimulating and intensely interesting. I keep hoping that it will someday present a single evidence of evolution, instead of simply statements that evolution is proved. It always amazes me how that many brilliant minds can be so convinced about evolution, a concept so full of mistaken theories and yet not have a single shred of evidence. Ask any intellectual scientist for evidence of evolution, and all you will get is silence, antagonism or criticism of those who do not believe in evolution. http//:www.Edge.org refers to Intelligent Design Theory as unscientific backwoods religion compared to 'Intelligent Thought', implying that atheists are intelligent thinkers, and scientists that promote Intelligent Design Theory are ignorant. Yet these sincere truth-seekers' most common thread of discussion is the one proof of an Intelligent Designer that bothers them the most: consciousness of humans, animals and as some believe, even plants.
The odds of DNA coming together are about 10-400 to 1 if one ignores the maybe approximate realm of 10-infinity odds of each and everything else necessary for housing and supporting the DNA to give it life. The number of atoms in the universe is only about 1080. The question has been raised, how can so few atoms randomly combine 10400 times to produce only one DNA molecule with another infinite number of tries to surround it with the necessary housing for support? And how long will it take for the second DNA molecule to accidentally combine? Maybe we should revise our 4 billion years to infinityinfinty number of years. But that's okay, they say. In a hundred billion years an evolutionist will evolve that will have an intelligent thought and produce a single fact concerning evolution (change from one species to another) rather than natural selection (change within a species). Meanwhile, we must accept evolution (change from one species to another) in blind religious faith.
As I study the atheistic evolutionist literature (which is copious, due to the unlimited bias, discrimination and prejudice in secular schools, I see a trend coming towards an astonishing new atheistic evolutionist theory. Let me help you here, humanists (a semantic word designed to make 'atheists' sound loving, kind and beneficial); your new yet unannounced theory after your Theory of Everything might be that atoms think, and therefore can come together under such enormous odds! In this new theory, you can take a vat of nuts and bolts and stir them. You can throw in some random amounts of other chemicals, especially water and methane, and vary the pressure, temperature and velocity, and sooner than later (maybe twelve billion years) these thinking nuts and bolts and chemicals will unite together to produce a thinking, reproducing new species of plant or animal capable of holding its own against existing plants and animals, especially when its offspring engage in survival of the fittest.
It is obvious that all living things think. Why else would microorganisms seek out food and beneficial conditions to reproduce and become dormant under adverse conditions? Why else would plants produce flowers of unique form, beauty and smell to attract bees and produce seeds surrounded by delicious fruits since they cannot walk around and have sex with one another? Why else would flowers exist, if not to reproduce, provide food for animals, and to shout beautiful praises of expressive glory to whatever it was that created them?
Perhaps Cleve Baxter's polygraph experiments on plants in 1966, by placing electrodes similar to lie detectors on plants, indicated that plants may produce an electronic signal when we think about cutting them, burning them or crushing them, even when we think it at a great distance had some validity. Of course there were the usual educated non-investigative detractors that effectively debunked him. It seems that those who have taken the trouble to investigate have concluded that plants think, as have even some edge.org contributors on their own, without Baxter or polygraphs. To my knowledge, whether or not plants have psychic properties has never been investigated by scientists other than Baxter, so it has not been established. I don't sing or play classical music to my plants, but perhaps since plants may think, we should stop eating both plants and animals.
If you see an insect scurrying across your bathroom floor, it is conscious of you and is watching you. When you look at it, moving nothing but your eyes, it instantly stops, hoping you mistake it for perhaps a piece of dirt or something. If you decide to step on it, again before you move, it quickly darts to the darker grouting between the tiles, hoping you can no longer see it. If instead, you marvel that such a tiny thing has a brain and a stomach and digestive juices and a nervous system and is even trying to figure out if you will kill it or let it go, and you decide to let it go about its business, it quickly and casually goes back to wherever it was headed. From these and many other observations we can speculate that both plants and insects, and most likely dogs and dolphins have mental telepathy that exceeds our abilities.
But plants, humans and insects are made of water, carbon dioxide and a few other inert chemicals. How can these chemicals accidentally produce thoughts without Intelligent Design? To answer this question, we have many evolutionists devoting their lives to studying how inert matter became conscious, the result of which I believe will be a new theory of Evidence of Evolution to end all arguments, or maybe a theory of Intelligent Design.
All living matter is conscious, and since your new theory will finally prove evolution, which you have previously been unable to prove, it may make sense to you that all chemicals, rocks, nuts and bolts think. I have already seen hints of this in your literature, so I am helping you accelerate the acceptance of this wild theory (among atheists, of course).
Theorem:
A. All living matter is conscious of its existence.
B. All living matter is composed of inanimate matter.
Therefore, either
1. All inanimate matter, such as atoms, is conscious of its existence, or
2. An Intelligent Designer designed all inanimate matter.
So evolutionists can now argue (1) that atoms are conscious and (2) there is no such thing as Intelligent Design. Creationists can argue (2) that an Intelligent Designer created atoms. Neither can prove their theory. As a result of one of these two conclusions, humans as well as maybe plants and animals, think and are conscious. The difference in belief (faith without proof) becomes one of moral argument. I will present an even better theory in a moment.
Without moral guidance, such as is enforced by the ACLU and Supreme Court prohibition of the Ten Commandments because God wrote it, intellectual atheists still have strong moral beliefs. They conclude that moral behavior is the thing to do because it avoids conflict between humans and avoids retribution by those that would be harmed. They also know that community interaction and cooperation is beneficial to all. We also instinctively love one another and have an instinctive need to have harmonious group contact, to obey our parents and to instruct our children in morality. And so evolutionists and our courts independently construct their own Four Commandments that exclude the worship of God, not worshipping idols, not coveting what others have (socialism) honoring your parents and that otherwise duplicate what God wrote (or what our reasoning ancestors concluded and ascribed to God). Thus, many atheists are often even more moral than many God-fearing believers; especially those that believe that Jesus paid for our sins so why not do it? But the danger is that the secular school-educated atheistic general public that says that since there is no God, no life after death, and does whatever feels good now.
The moral issue is that atheists believe that living matter is an accident, but because there is even an extremely rare fringe of intellectual scientists who lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery and kill unwanted babies, this kind of blind faith (religion) is not praiseworthy. The major problem involves the television-computer game-evolution-anesthetized school children who include rape and murder of classmates among all their beliefs and activities.
A Charles Darwin evolution-oriented mind has a far different view than a religious person of the universe in which we are immersed. In general, the atheist is only cognizant of that which it perceives. An Intelligent Design-oriented person is usually cognizant that something outside ourselves is cognizant of us. The Intelligent Design oriented person is aware not just of what it can touch, taste, smell, see and hear, but is aware that an intelligent consciousness permeates the universe. The Darwinian mind sees accident and chaos in everything. It is okay to kill innocent unborn babies, and illegal to interrogate terrorists for killing innocent people. The Intelligent Design-oriented mind sees beauty and harmony in everything, with humans messing it up.
The basic differences then express themselves as hate versus love, situational ethics versus moral conviction, sex for the sake of raw sex versus consequential results, and greed versus charity. Kids who believe in God may lie, cheat or steal, but not without pangs of conscience. They are not the likely ones to regress to primitive tattoos and body mutilations, shoot their classmates, or abort their children. Is there any argument here for teaching Intelligent Design of the atom versus the evolution of atomic consciousness in our classrooms? Millions of terrible tortures and murders have been committed in the name of religion. But these were phony Christians, Muslims or whatever. Any person who views with awe everything that God created has trouble swatting a mosquito, much less a human, and there are very few of these people among believers.
However, there is a new and maybe ultimate concept evolving in the world of string theorists that our universe evolved from another universe. Some of today's theoretical physicists have come to believe that creatures in other universes evolved to the point that they created our universe. In other words, they now believe that an Intelligent Designer (from another universe) created our universe. The only logical outcome of this conclusion will be that Intelligent Design must be taught in our schools if we are ever to understand what laws of physics and human behavior govern this world, as determined by that intelligent designer from the other universe.
Evolutionists believe that God does not exist. Only atoms exist and atoms have existed for all eternity. It follows then that atoms must be infinitely intelligent to have combined in such an infinitely intelligent manner. From this it is obvious that whatever it was, empty space or other universes, that created the atoms is infinitely intelligent. It also follows that whatever created the atoms has existed forever. Being infinitely intelligent, whatever created the atoms is most likely moral, for morality is an integral part of intelligent thought. Being moral, it is obvious that Intelligent Design theory and the Ten Commandments minus Number One should be taught in secular schools.
Intelligent Design Theory HOME PAGE
Preface of Book Intelligent Design Theory
Contents of Book Intelligent Design Theory
Forward of Book Intelligent Design Theory
NEXT PAGE:
PREVIOUS PAGE: Creation of the Universe - God and Intelligent Design Theory
Index of Intelligent Design Theory -- Creationism vs. Evolution Book Keywords
Copyright (C) 2007 Robert L. Laing All rights reserved