Darwinism and the Anthropic
The Evolution of Conscious Observers,
An Overview of Alternative Theories
The Universe has an
obliging nature and is reflexive. It can provide proof
for any cosmological scheme, scientific or mystical,
foisted upon it.
- Mann & Sutton,
Giants of Gaia
The match between our
intelligence and the intelligibility of the world is no
accident. Nor can it properly be attributed to natural
selection, which places a premium on survival and
reproduction and has no stake in truth or conscious
thought. Indeed, meat-puppet robots are just fine as the
output of a Darwinian evolutionary process.
- William A. Dembski,
The Design Revolution
If evolution is the gradual linear and cumulative change of one kind
of organism into another kind, the fossil record itself illustrates
that evolution has not occurred. It is not difficult to see that
evolution has achieved the status of a religion in western society.
As Mary Midgely notes in Evolution as a Religion, evolution is a
powerful creation myth that shapes our view of who we are, and
influences us in ways far beyond its official function as a
biological theory. Midgely asserts that "the theory of evolution is
not just an inert piece of theoretical science," but is also "a
powerful folk tale about human origins."
She warns against applying
the confidence due to well-established scientific findings to a
"vast area which has only an imaginative affinity with them," and
where only "the trappings of a detached and highly venerated science
Sociobiology: The Escalator Myth
It is most important to learn to recognize sociobiological motifs
hidden within evolutionary philosophies. For instance, Sir Julian
Huxley has written:
"As a result of a thousand million years of
evolution, the Universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to
understand something of its past history and its possible future.
This cosmic self-awareness is being realized in one tiny fragment of
the Universe - in a few of us human beings... The first thing that
the human species has to do to prepare itself for the cosmic office
to which it finds itself appointed is to explore human nature, to
find out what are the possibilities open to it (including of course
In Beyond the Outsider, Colin Wilson adds: "Man
has a choice; he can devote himself to evolutionary purposes, or
confine himself to his everyday animal purposes."
Evolutionary philosophy is replete with sociobiological allusions to
such things as "evolutionary purposes" and "cosmic offices." Yet,
Darwin was specific in his denunciation of any such overarching
direction or purpose to evolution. It would appear that the human
species has simply ordained itself to this priesthood, since none of
the other animals are able to profess such a purpose. In order to
turn a perceptibly static process of change into a form of
scientific entertainment, Darwinís propagandists (most of whom are
philosophers, not scientists) use tricks of time travel, panoramic
views, and even allusions to God and/or to humans as Overlords. With
such cheap tricks up their sleeves, itís remarkable that some
Darwinists refer to Intelligent Design Theory as "Creationism
dressed up in a cheap tuxedo."
With the publication of various popular science books attempting to
simplify the new quantum physics paradigms for us little people,
this indulgence in evolution as a creation drama is most obvious. A
viewing of the science section of any large book store will display
countless titles that seemingly portray the idea that science is
making room for the existence of God. It is doing no such thing. It
is pulling a bait and switch. It is calling itself God.
As an example, in his book The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for
a Rational World, Paul Davies makes an attempt to redefine God-hood
as a process of rational thought that is pervasive in the Universe,
having a mathematically recognizable pattern that reflects
human-hood. There is no indication anywhere in the pages of this
book that the author is talking about God as the omniscient,
omnipotent and determinant cause or creator of the "rational"
Universe inside and outside the human mind. It is, rather, a book
about human rational superstructures in the act of recognizing that
the way it thinks might reflect the way the Universe was built.
Daviesí anthropomorphism is unmistakable.
This modern conversion of God goes one step beyond merely creating
God in manís image, to creating God in the image of Scientific
Prowess, as the Buddha of Reason and the Rational Mind.
"Human beings have all sorts of beliefs. The way in which
they arrive at them varies from reasoned argument to blind faith.
Some beliefs are based on personal experience, others on education,
and others on indoctrination. Many beliefs are no doubt innate: we
are born with them as a result of evolutionary factors."
Buried in this obtuse Lamarckian epistemology lies the suggestion
that a certain belief system, an acquired characteristic by any
standard, can be the result of an "evolutionary factor." Wouldnít it
be handy if we discovered that Davies was setting the stage to
present the thesis that scientific rationalism is the correct belief
system of the fittest individuals? Stay tuned - he is! Davies
"Four hundred years ago science came into conflict with
religion because it seemed to threaten Mankindís cozy place in the
Universe ... The revolution begun by Copernicus and finished by
Darwin had the effect of marginalizing, even trivializing, human
Itís nice to know mankind is cozy in the
arms of science.
Davies wonders why "science works," and asserts it works so well
that it points to something profoundly significant about the
organization of the Cosmos. The concept of human reasoning, he
explains, is itself a curious one. He writes:
"The processes of
human thought are not God-given. They have their origin in the
structure of the human brain, and the tasks it has evolved to
perform. The operation of the brain, in turn, depends on the laws of
physics and the nature of the physical world we inhabit."
Daviesí philosophy is a prime example of the a priori reasoning of a
devout naturalist. As William Dembski has charged, "For the
naturalist, the world is intelligible only if it starts off without
intelligence and then evolves intelligence." As he has so cogently
explained, naturalism sees intelligence as an evolutionary byproduct
and humans as an accident of natural history. But this view of the
world is changing fast in the Age of Aquarius, and all hands must be
on deck to understand what is at stake here.
While Dembski would agree that human intelligence seems uncannily
matched to the intelligence of the universe, in I.D. Theory this
awesome fact is itself a discoverable aspect of intelligent design
methodology, rather than the fortuitous finale of the quantum
parallel evolution of the universe and human beings. In reading
Daviesí scientific rationalist manifesto, and scores of others like
it, we can see why Intelligent Design Theoryís chalk screeches so
shrilly on the dogmatic blackboard of Darwinís last stand.
This peculiar evolutionary psychology (i.e. sociobiological) model
sets its definition of God as the mechanistic processes in nature
which seemingly mirror the belief system of scientific rationalism.
This merely exemplifies the humbling motto, written by the authors
of Giants of Gaia, that "the Universe has an obliging nature and is
reflexive. It can provide proof for any cosmological scheme,
scientific or mystical, foisted upon it." The authorís definition of
the conscious awareness of the connectedness of inner/outer worlds
is the now pseudo-scientific term: "God." The processes which mirror
scientific rationalism are now called God; not the giver, mind you,
but the gift itself. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, science is God. As
Charles Fort asserts,
"science is a Turtle that says that its own
shell encloses all things."
The idea being promulgated by Davies, that evolution progresses
"upward" toward more complex forms, is definitively contrary to
Darwinian theory, and he should know it. But these philosophers
apparently have no conscience about propagating such disinformation
to the public. It is entertainment and leisure time distraction
parading as science. Contrary to Daviesí brazen embellishment of
Darwinís theory, in actuality Darwin posited no guarantee of the
continuation of particular changes, and saw no particular change,
such as increased intelligence, which stood at the apex of this
In fact, Peter Bowler, author of The Non-Darwinian Revolution:
Reinterpreting a Historical Myth, finds no fault with Darwinís
theory; he only finds fault with "the mistaken notion of its
revolutionary effect on 19th Century thought." Examining the work of
such figures as Owen, Spencer, Kelvin, Huxley,
Haeckel, and Freud,
Bowler finds "a near-universal tendency to accept evolutionism while
rejecting Darwinís central premise [regarding natural selection]."
Bowler argues, it isnít Darwin at all who has affected modern
philosophy, since most philosophers have misunderstood and
misapplied the essence of Darwinís theory, taking it to fantastic sociobiological extremes.
The idea of the upward movement of life forms from lifeless matter
through plants, animals and man (and now to God) was suggested by
Lamarck, and initially given the term "evolution" by
Spencer. Darwin argued against the idea that there existed any
innate tendency toward progressive development. Darwinian theory,
instead, was shaped more like a bush than a tree, and accounted for
all types of development, including unchangingness and regression,
as responses to environment.
Molecular biologist, W. Ford Doolittle, asserts that the history of
life cannot properly be represented as a tree, but rather as "an
unresolved bush." Yet, evolution predicts that molecular data should
allow a phylogenetic "tree of life" to be constructed. In fact, all
predictions of descent in molecular data have failed. (see "Design
vs. Descent: A War of Predictions")
Thus, Mary Midgely deduces, in Evolution as a Religion, Herbert
Spencerís "ladder" theory has prevailed over Darwinís "bush" theory
in popular scientific writing, and thus in the public mind, as well
as in the minds of scientists who have had a difficult time fitting
Darwinian theory to the actual fossil record. Midgely contends that
an "over-ambitious reliance on the escalator model and the inflated
creeds which express it" are the source of many superstitious
beliefs that follow the theory of evolution.
Darwinism and the Anthropic Principle
Where does the theory of Darwinian evolution go wrong? In my
estimation it takes a wrong turn at the idea of the evolution of
intelligence: at a particularly treacherous bend in the road known
Anthropic Principle. In my book,
Space Travelers and the
Genesis of the Human Form, I explored the anthropic principle,
focusing on Frank Tipplerís denial of the existence of
extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) based on the
The anthropic principle is based on a biological argument: the
minimum time required for the evolution of "intelligent observers."
In this scheme, a billion years is required for the evolution of
intelligence; therefore, a star must have been stable for at least
that long. The anthropic timescale argument allows that the types of
processes allowed in the Universe must be of such an age that "slow
evolutionary processes will have had time to produce intelligent
beings from non-living matter."
(Barrow & Tipler 159)
Interestingly, Tiplerís Space Travel Argument (based on the
anthropic principle) states specifically that "the contemporary
advocates for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life
seem to be primarily astronomers and physicists, such as Sagan,
Drake, and Morrison, while most leading experts in evolutionary
biology, for instance Dobzhansky, Simpson, Francois,
Ayala et al.
and Mayr, contend that the Earth is probably unique in harboring
intelligence." (Barrow & Tipler) So we see then why we are told that
us human beings are alone in the Universe. Because Darwinian
evolution has told us so. But does not this assumption place the
cart before the horse, since we really donít have an answer to this
In a nutshell, the anthropic principle assumes intelligence to be a
product of evolution: i.e. it could not have been there before, and
it is a development only exhibited by human beings. Thus, the term
"intelligence" is implied to mean only "human intelligence." The
tautology here is obvious. If you claim that intelligence was never
there beforehand and can only be gotten through an incremental
succession of steps involving pure random luck (i.e. as an
earth-based anomaly), then you must call that process evolution.
This is the heart of the paradigm of scientific naturalism.
Intelligence has got to be a product of evolution.
As I argued in
Space Travelers, Darwinian evolution cannot be used
as a framework from which to correctly argue against the Cosmic
co-existence of the humanoid form, or human-like intelligence, since
it likely places the cart before the horse. The most common argument
against the existence of "intelligent" life in the Universe is based
on the consensus reality of Darwinian evolution. To state it more
specifically, the fundamental premise underlying the argument
against the existence of intelligent life in the Cosmos, and
specifically the humanoid form, is the assumed impossibility of the
separate evolution of upright, bipedal, large brained, tool-making
hominids on planets which are worlds apart.
Yet, a confounded dilemma trips up the popular use of the evolution
argument against the co-existence of the humanoid form in the Cosmos
at large. We are merely extrapolating this presumption from an
unproven theory based on an Earth-centric bias. "Darwinian evolution
constitutes a tautology: a self-contained system of circular proofs,
which are always true in a self-contained system of circular proofs."
The Intelligent Universe
Physicists now claim that we live in an intelligent universe. They
suggest the universe is a great big Mind. Yet, there are some
evolutionists who claim the concept of Mind-at-Large to be a sign of
the evolution of human intelligence from inorganic matter. As an
example, in his book, The Self-Aware Universe, Amit Goswami asks:
"How has the Cosmos existed for the past fifteen billion years if
for the bulk of this time there were no conscious observers to do
any collapsing of wave functions?"
For those readers unfamiliar with
the new quantum physics paradigm, this terminology refers to a
particular interpretation of findings which suggests that reality is
a creation of the human mind, or the "conscious observer." The "wave
function" referred to in this theory is thought to be the process of
bringing a particular facet of reality into being, which can occur
only once it is "collapsed" by the observation of a "conscious
Goswamiís logic is compelling, but, of course, it is not the only
possible translation of what could be occurring. The problem with
this view, the anthropic principle, is we assume a closed system,
based upon the Darwinian paradigm of the local evolution of
consciousness on Earth as an independent and accidental event.
Secondly, we suppose that consciousness is specifically "human" and
Earth-based. The most simple answer is that we are not the first or
the only conscious observers, and we are not alone in the Universe!
Pondering how consciousness "arose in the Universe," this peculiar
Western viewpoint - the anthropic principle - refuses the primacy of
consciousness, and instead assumes causality - an endless chain of
linear causes - in the Universe. The anthropic principle assumes the
evolution of intelligence from non-organic matter, and extrapolates
the time required for the evolution of "conscious observers" based
on the presumed localized, one-of-a-kind, anomaly of Earth-based
human evolution. This assumption is then applied as a cosmic
The Universe is more like a living organism with a conscious
purpose. Modern physics sees evidence that the primal presence of
consciousness is in itself the reason why, contrary to the law of
entropy, the Universe is not running down. In other words,
consciousness or "Mind-at-Large" is primal to "human" consciousness,
not the other way around. Weíve got it backwards.
These sociobiological ideas suggest that humankind has acquired a
certain "correct" point of view (scientific materialism) with which
to peer into a micro and macro Universe that runs like a machine,
while at the same time arguing against an ultra purpose or design.
This view is remindful of an earlier scientific era when humans
perceived the "clockwork" in the Universe, but this time an
anthropomorphized (human-like) concept of "evolution" has replaced
the clockmaker. Evolution has become a grand cosmological scheme in
which man "evolved" patterns of thought which correctly mirror the
Universe. Mankind is a being that "accidentally" hit the bulls eye
in his "evolution" of intelligence and consciousness. But whatís the
payoff? We could look directly into the Face of God on the clock,
and never see the view.
In his book, Ishtar Rising, Robert Anton Wilson describes a "panchreston"
as a system that explains everything. He argues, "any human formula
which explains all human formulas is technically in the class of all
classes which include themselves and leads to logical
As Mary Midgely asserts, the myths and dramas attending the theme of
evolution, while using scientific language, are "quite contrary to
currently accepted scientific doctrines about it." These dramas
provide their adherents with a "live faith" that adds meaning to
their lives. In this sense they are religious. Why do such dramas go
hand in hand with evolution? During my years as a believer in the
"fact" of evolution, the two foremost excuses I made for people who
contested their great ape lineage were:
(1) these poor souls didnít
have an adequate understanding of the theory (i.e. they were dumb),
(2) humans generally are incapable of imagining the incredible
span of time involved in such incremental processes of change (i.e.
it must be happening even though we canít see it or prove it).
Therefore, it is understandable why Midgely would suggest that,
taken literally and without personal meaning, the theory of
evolution is "scarcely graspable at all by the human imagination."
Nonetheless, the creators of such evolutionary dramas owe to their
readers a more honest expose of our current understanding of
evolutionary processes so they might better understand what they are
accepting as scientific fact. They would quickly realize the Emperor
wears no clothes.
Gaia Theory and Gaia Mind
Microbiologist, Lynn Margulis, and chemist, James Lovelock,
Gaia Hypothesis in the 1970s (now upgraded to a
theory). They proposed that life creates the conditions for its own
existence, challenging the reigning theory that the forces of
geology set the conditions for life, while plants and animals, sort
of accidentally along for the ride, evolved by chance under the
The Darwinian concept of adaptation to the environment has been
seriously questioned by Margulis, Lovelock and others working from a
systems point of view. Evolution cannot be explained by the
adaptation of organisms to local environments, they argue, because
the environment is also being shaped by a network of living systems.
The evolution of life according to the Gaia Theory is a cyclical,
"self-regulating" feedback relationship. Interestingly, Margulis has
stated that one day neo-Darwinism will be judged as:
"a minor 20th
Century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of
The Gaia Theory was originally proposed as the
Gaia Hypothesis by
James Lovelock in 1972 in a paper titled, "Gaia as seen through the
atmosphere," and popularized in the 1979 book, Gaia: A New Look At
Life on Earth. Lovelockís initial hypothesis proposed that the whole
Earth behaves like one self-regulating organism wherein all of the
geologic, hydrologic, and biologic cycles of the planet mutually
self-regulate the conditions on the surface of the Earth so as to
perpetuate life. Later, when the mainstream scientific body got hold
of the theory, it changed significantly, and we can all guess why.
As Lovelock wrote of his earlier theory:
"I coined the term "Gaia Mind" in 1996 to describe a variation on an
idea first suggested by Teilhard de Chardin in 1955 in Le Phenomene
Humain, namely that the whole of the Earth is conscious, or more
accurately, is in the process of becoming self-conscious [with
mankind as the mirror], and that collectively we and our technology
essentially are that process. Teilhard called this phenomenon the
noosphere - derived from the same root as the words
lithosphere, etc. However, that version of the idea, as first put
forward by Teilhard, often tended to emphasize our separation and
departure from nature, as if each stage transcends and supersedes
the previous one. This version of the idea of emergent global
consciousness has become widespread with the advent of computers and
the Internet, but has also often been criticized as focusing on
technology at the expense of nature, as if the two are inherently
antagonistic. By contrast, the term Gaia Mind is intended to
emphasize our continuing connection to nature, and that the whole
process is fundamentally an expression of the living Earth, as a
totality, becoming self-aware and self-conscious rather of man, or
humanity alone, doing so through technology."
One website explains Margulisí theory that humans evolved from
bacteria. It states,
"Acknowledging that our ancestors are bacteria
is humbling and has disturbing implications. Besides impugning human
sovereignty over the rest of nature, it challenges our ideas of
individuality, uniqueness, and independence. It even violates our
view of ourselves as discrete physical beings separated from the
rest of nature and - still more unsettling - it challenges the
alleged uniqueness of human intelligent consciousness."
All such "humbling" sentiments aside, while
evolution has not been simply a 4-billion-year preparation for
higher and more complex organisms, she bases this view on the fact
that most of lifeís history has been microbial. Her theory proposes,
essentially, that without our interdependence on microbial ancestors
and cohorts, we would "sink in feces and choke on carbon dioxide we
exhale." Margulis sees humans as,
"recombination of the metabolic
processes of bacteria that appeared before, during, and after the
accumulation of atmospheric oxygen some 2,000 million years ago."
Margulis has also taken her theory to the "green" level, asserting
that the "lesson of evolutionary history is that it will be through
conservation, interaction, and networking, not domination, that we
avert a premature end to our species."
Margulis still insists that consciousness evolved, but where did the
consciousness come from? Answer: It had to come from inside the
system in the "naturalist" framework. Consciousness has to evolve,
it canít have been there in the first place.
Proponents of 17th Century Vitalism posited that the body is
governed by the action of a soul or vital force. This teaching
asserts that evolution is not purely mechanical but is the result of
a purposeful force called the "life force," which pervades the
Universe. For instance, vitalist T.E. Hulme, suggested,
of evolution can only be described as the gradual insertion of more
and more freedom into matter. ... In the amoeba, you might say that
the impulse has manufactured a small leak through which free
activity could be inserted into the world, and the process of
evolution has been the gradual enlargement of this leak."
Neo-Darwinists argue against such a mysterious
(exterior) impulse, vital force or field.
The Vitalist school of thought argues that physics and chemistry are
insufficient to explain life. The whole is more than the sum of its
parts: this is what vitalism has in common with systems theory. Both
vitalists and organismic biologists try to describe the way in which
the whole is more than the sum of its parts. While organismic
biologists view the inherent relationships which organize the whole
as being the presumed added ingredient, vitalists look for an
outside force, field, or nonphysical process.
Margulis and other systems thinkers continue to assert that there is
no purpose or overarching goal in evolution. They insist the driving
force of evolution is not random, but rather emerges out of "lifeís
inherent tendency to create novelty, in the spontaneous emergence of
increasing complexity and order." Its a good thing this creative
force is inherent and spontaneous, or it wouldnít square with the
paradigm of scientific naturalism. Clearly, itís one thing for the
new wave of systems thinkers to partially debunk Darwin, but they
had better stop short of saying the driver is anywhere but inside
the vehicle. This Babyís on Board! Staying carefully within certain
necessary aspects of scientific naturalism, Margulis and other
systems thinkers explicitly assert that there is no purpose, goal or
vital force in evolution.
Theory of Formative Causation
A modern example of Vitalist theory is
Rupert Sheldrakeís Theory of Morphic Resonance, also called the
Theory of Formative Causation,
described in detail in his book, A New Science of Life. In his book,
The Presence of the Past, Sheldrake explains that morphogenic fields
contain an inherent memory. He explains, the "structure of these
fields is not determined by either transcendent ideas or timeless
mathematical formulae, but rather result from the actual forms of
previous similar organisms." Sheldrake believes the structure of the
morphogenic fields "depends on what has happened before." In an
interview with Robert Gilman, Sheldrake explains why Vitalism has
come back to life as a scientific theory and is being embraced in
"Using morphogenetic fields as the carrier of memory implies no
absolute separation between minds. It suggests our identity is dual,
like an electron that is both particle and wave. We have aspects
that are unique and totally individual, yet at the same time much of
our thought and behavior is shaped by, participates in, and helps to
create transpersonal morphogenetic fields. Our ordinary learning
within our culture shapes us in a similar way, but these ideas move
that sharing to a more intimate level. We are thus both individuals
and expressions of (and creators of) a group mind - like the
collective unconscious, but more extensive, and in some aspects more
Because our brains contain levels (mammalian,
etc.) that connect us to other species, that group mind includes all
life. We may even find, as we explore the possibilities of
consciousness associated with what we now think of as non-living
matter, that we are linked in consciousness to all creation. We
would thus be linked to the stars not only through the chemicals in
our bodies, but through our minds as well.
Accepting the idea of
morphogenetic fields also opens the door to
the scientific investigation of the idea that consciousness and
mental processes can function without physical support. This would
allow the existence of non-physical beings (gods, angels, life after
death, etc.) - a subject of prime interest to most religious and
Theories of Panspermia
Panspermia is the theory that life on earth was seeded by microbial
life from space. There are several variations on this theme held by
many historical advocates, including the Greek philosopher,
Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE), Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894), and
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1897).
More recently, Svante Arrhenius promulgated the theory of radio-panspermia,
wherein microbes from space are transported by light pressure. Fred
Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have advocated that
DNA arrived on
earth via meteorites, the theory of ballistic panspermia, or by
comets, modern panspermia. Francis Crick has advocated the theory of
directed panspermia, wherein RNA was transported by unmanned
spaceships, or the space probes of intelligent extraterrestrial
civilizations. This is also thought of as the "Noahís Ark"
As the reader may recall, British molecular biologist, Francis
Crick, now at the Salk Institute, California, won a Nobel Prize for
his part in the elucidation of the structure of DNA. Notably,
was later led to argue for Panspermia by his belief that the chances
of life accidentally originating on Earth were very low. Crick
argued that the universality of the genetic code can only be
explained by an "infective" theory of the origin of life. In this
theory, life on Earth would be a "clone" derived from a single set
of organisms. Crickís radical theory of directed panspermia suggests
that RNA was the first replicator molecule on Earth in an early
Making Room for Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design (I.D.) Theory is the science that
of intelligence. In his book, The Design Inference, its leading
proponent, mathematician William Dembski, employs statistical
testing of the natural world to see if it shows evidence of
intelligent design. As Dembski has explained, evolutionary biology
teaches that biological complexity is the result of material
mechanisms. Dembski explains, the only alternative to "mechanism" in
biological complexity is "intelligence," and the only alternative to
evolutionary biology is intelligent design. He explains,
"Intelligent design studies the effects of intelligence in the
world. Many special sciences already fall under intelligent design,
including archeology, cryptography, forensics, and
SETI (the Search
for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Intelligent design is thus
already part of science. Moreover, it employs well-defined methods
for detecting intelligence. These methods together with their
application constitute the theory of intelligent design."
In response to Darwinists and naturalists who claim I.D. Theory is
not science, Dembski argues,
"the mark of a pseudoscience is not
that it is false but, in the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that
it is "not even false." In other words, with a pseudoscience
no way to decide whether it is true or false. Evolutionary
biologists argue that material mechanisms suffice to account for
biological complexity. Intelligent design theorists argue that
material mechanisms are inadequate to account for biological
complexity. Both sides are trying to determine the truth of some
definite matter of fact - whether life is the result of mindless
material mechanisms or whether it demonstrably points to a designing
intelligence. This is a genuine scientific debate."
In their commitment to keep intelligent cause outside of the
boundaries of naturalist science, Darwinists and scientific
naturalists charged, in one news story, that I.D. Theory is
"Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo." Adrian Melott, author of the
article published in Physics Today, claims I.D. Theory to be on the
"cutting edge of creationism." Continually referring to Dembski as
an "ID creationist," he claims, "ID is different from its forebears.
It does a better job of disguising its sectarian intent." As William Dembski responds, "somehow science and our knowledge of the natural
world is supposed to unravel once we allow that intelligence could
be a fundamental principal operating in the universe," a charge he
finds to be without merit.
As Dembski further suggests, human intelligence is finely tuned to
the intelligibility of the world. Try as it will, Darwinian
evolution cannot explain human consciousness. He explains,
match between our intelligence and the intelligibility of the world
is no accident. Nor can it properly be attributed to natural
selection, which places a premium on survival and reproduction and
has no stake in truth or conscious thought. Indeed, meat-puppet
robots are just fine as the output of a Darwinian evolutionary
In addition, Dembski suggests,
I.D. Theory is compatible with any
form of teleological guidance one could come up with. I.D. Theory
does not require "an interventionist conception of design" and does
not require God to be an "intervening meddler." He explains,
God to be an intervening meddler requires a world that finds divine
intervention meddlesome. Intelligent Design requires neither a
meddling God nor a meddled world. For that matter, it doesnít even
require that there be a God."
As Dembski has shown,
"one can see that a third mode of explanation
is required, namely, intelligent design. Chance, necessity and
design - these three modes of explanation - are needed to explain
the full range of scientific phenomena."
Life is more than chance
combinations of atoms and cells, write the authors of Giants of
Gaia. To organize the parts which "collectively enable a bird to
fly, or the human brain to form," the writers insist, "there had to
be an order which brought together the parts not by chance, nor by
simple adaptation to external stimulus, but through intelligence."
This intelligence inherently constitutes the Universe.
Writing in his essay, "Astrogenesis," William Hamilton explains,
"The real paradigm shift is to consider that the Universe is a
life-producing nursery and that the genesis and evolution of life is
not earth-centered but rather is distributed among the stars of the
galaxies. This idea can be developed into a viable theory as studies
in panspermia and astrobiology continue. The real vision this offers
is a way to reconcile the possibilities of ancient and recent
visitors to earth who appear to be humanoid with an overarching
theory that explains the existence of cosmic cousins."
In conclusion, we need not bow to the defunct theory of the
evolution of the human form as an Earth-based anomaly. Let go!
Unhinge. Be a BIPED: Beings for PURPOSE in Evolutionary DESIGN. Feel
free to explore what that really means! Humans did not crawl out of
the ponds of our earth habitat. We are an ancient race connected to
the Universe. The human form is a cosmic happening. People are
universal. Question who might want us to think otherwise! Star Trek
is real! God is Real. Gaia is alive! The Cosmic Web is a
creation hierarchy. Take it wherever you want. Get in fist fights at
parties! Practice your absolute freedom from Acada-Media mind control!
References and Suggested Reading
Alston, William, "What is
Naturalism, That We Should be Mindful of It?"
Barrow, John, and Frank Tipler, The
Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford Paperbacks
Behe, Michael, Darwinís Black Box :
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
Behe, Michael, et al. Science and
Evidence for Design in the Universe.
de Chardin, Teilhard, The Phenomenon
Dembski, William, The Design
Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent
Design. See also,
Dembski, William and Michael J. Behe,
Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science & Theology.
Dembski, William (Ed.) and James
Kushiner (Ed.), Signs of Intelligence : Understanding
"Design vs. Descent: A War of
Hoyle, Fred, et al., A Different
Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe Through the Big
Bang Towards Reality.
Johnson, Phillip, Darwin on Trial,
and The Wedge of Truth : Splitting the Foundations of
Margulis, Lynn, In Context,
Overman, Dean and Wolfhart
Pannenberg, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization.
Spetner, Lee, Not by Chance.
Sheldrake, Rupert, The Presence of
the Past: Morphic Resonance & the Habits of Nature, also see
Interview, Morphogenetic Fields and Beyond,
Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution:
Science or Myth?.