Creator Hypothesis - Version #7, Standing on it's own scientific merit!

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

CREATOR HYPOTHESIS - Version #7

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

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 know 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".

Instead of hiding intent, we're saying what this is, right away, so that is clear. It is admittedly religious. But it's still an interesting scientific challenge to scientists (not public schools) who would not normally like anything with such religious meaning. 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 I can explain what this is, and why the name is in this case appropriate.

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.

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.

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.

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

METHODS

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

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

DESCRIPTION

(bring science in references into here)

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

DISCUSSION


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.

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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)

If there was a big bang then the creator is whatever caused it. It expanded with the universe or is larger than it. We're inside the expansion. Thus we are one with the creator and/or its creation. All science can only be evidence of this inclusion. (1,2,3,4,5.6)

Amen...(7)

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Symbiosis (Bio, Cleveland-ID) review-intro, Cletus77 (IDKWTFIGO, MassLive-Rel) review discussion, Sebdal (paleo, Massachusetts) hypothesis paper structuring, 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.

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

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/experim...llmembrane.html

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

http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72

5) Interesting Cell Intelligence presentation:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/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/anim_innerlife_lo.html

Higher resolutions and videos:

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

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

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

I believe god is everywhere filling up the whole universe
I believe there is one God because of what I said above
I Believe God reveled him self through human history
I Believe God existing in state of mater unknown to us.

From the Kansas Citizens for Science site: http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=186

From my admittedly quick perusal and skimming of this post and some of the links, I detect pseudo-science and an attempt to regroup from the thorough defeat in the courts, to attempt another comeback by the remnants of the ID camp (the "we" constantly in use throughout this OP.) Their "Creator" is getting more and more obscure and nebulous! What were versions 1 - 6? (()) It IS humorous but still NOT scientific enough of a name even to qualify as a hypothesis! "But a "Creator Hypothesis" really gets everyone's attention." It may get the indecisive or gullible persons to perk up their ears, but it is still seen as disguised hogwash! Starting out by dismissing Darwin WILL NOT WORK! Until "we" (meaning you) can come up with more than a half-baked hypothesis that could explain the entire body of the natural sciences with a better working model than Darwin, you are doomed to continuing failure! Go back to your drawing boards, read Darwin, Huxley, Dawkins, Gould, Sagan and any peer-reviewed true science, then join the enlightened world of truth and openness, so you won't have to skulk in the shadows scheming for ANY WAY POSSIBLE to try to get your nonsense past the scrutiny of scientific minds. NICE TRY!

Actually, I have been mixing science and religion for over 20 years. The ID movement is to me, just one more religious movement that will come and go.

Other versions are here:

http://www.cleveland.com/forums/debate/

I have no need to go "back to the drawing boards" because I more than understand the scientists you listed, and the science. Biological evolution does not explain much concerning the origin of life, anyway. There has to be something evolvable before evolution is even possible.

Did you read how the "intelligence" I describe connects to evolution? Hence, a view of evolution from the perspective of intelligence? I think you saw what you wanted to see, not the science that was there.

I'm also being encouraged by a paleontologist who hates ID, to publish it in Nature. He would not say that if it was pseudo-science...

That's very similar to what I believe. I'm convinced that through science we can understand what the "Creator" is. But I don't expect to find a human looking entity that points a finger to zap new species into existence. Is more like what you said "I believe god is everywhere filling up the whole universe". An entity, that's right there in front of us, which requires science to understand.

Hi Gary, Photo, Thunder,
Hey Gary,
Although I find your attempt fairly originally presented and , at least borderline subjective, I can't get past (for one example), the part of the post I quoted you.
I have no reason to doubt the credentials you've stated, but, even I, as a well read layman, do not accept that a creator is the only possible cause of the BB.
Without going too far into meta-physics, I thought that (assuming the BB started as a singularity), a spontaneous explosion (which is not necessarily a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics when it comes to Quantum Physics) was (correct me if I'm wrong) an inevitability, if not just extremely plausible.
I do have a belief in G_D, but I think that the very nature of an omnipotent being belies any possible empirical evidence.
Again, mostly my opinion, but, that opinion doesn't mean people should stop trying. I'm pretty sure I've been wrong before!
Peace,
Ron

PS: I've adapted a phrase I like to use when friends try to bring up much less mundane attempts than yours as: "How can we even expect to think that we can even think like G_D?"

Thanks Ron!

That was an excellent review. Zeroed right in on a weakness that I can now see too. Gives me something to reword for version #8 I can work with, that will strengthen the science even more, even if it seems like being precise would be a problem. I'll be sure to post the new version here when done.

I changed the paragraph to:


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.

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.


What do think Ron? Anyone?

This post has been edited by Gary Gaulin on Jan 16 2008, 07:10 AM

I think that there's no way to detach intelligence, or at least logic, from observations of the universe. Whether the intelligence is externally imposed or a product of interpretations made by intelligent observers, there is an inherent subjective property of intelligence or logic that rules even our ability to think or experience coherently, anything at all.

And there also appears to be many logical/scientific ways by which such inexplicable properties can be observed, yet not be describable, communicable or verifiable etc.

I think you can see the issue anytime you have an observer/observed relationship.

In order for something to observer something outside itself, as the external system must possess at least one attribute that is not immediately available to be detected by the observer, otherwise the observed would already be contained within the observer and not change relative to the observer.

At least one dimension of those available for shared communication must be used to convey time and hence an observed system can only be viewed, at any specific moment, as existing in a space at least one dimension lower than it truly exists.

This (these) non-commonly shared property (or properties) create the equivalent of hidden dimensions of motion that are only viewable over time, and because these hidden dimensions of motion aren't immediately visible, any understanding of them must be indirectly constructed and modelled in the observer, but this is necessarily a statistical process as the information is not immediately detectable and verifiable.

A simple analogy here is that in a 3 dimensional space, only surfaces are visible and the properties contained in the depth of an object is only revealed over time (we don't actually see apples in their entire 3 dimensional glory at any specific moment but instead only witness a flat surface (2-D), and it takes time to interact with an apple and discover what information various constructed interior surfaces reveal, assume apples have interiors but that's only because we've learned that this property exist over time), and this is a necessary hidden component or there would be no hidden motions to allow differential changes to occur between observer and observed - basically if someone could already see the entire volume of a space, there would be no change over time after this and the observer would effectively encompass that volume after witnessing it once.

So there's a constant flow of novel information in everything we experience - for example a room is not immediately visible without light or sound, but that light and sound do immediately eminate from the objects we see or hear, but instead that sound and light are filtered by various surfaces of an object over time, but the raw and chaotic information/energy of this sound or light arose from a source beyond those - for example, when we "see" an apple, it's generally not because apples are very hot (and cooling) and spontaineously emit radiation (in which case this would only be a temporary event as prior reserves of energy would be emitted and decay in the available information they could convey over time), but instead because a light is reflected off the apple. So where did this light come from? It came from priorly unobserved information that was hidden behind the surface of the Sun or as electricity in a distant power plant, that is transferring unwitnessened energy in terms of chemical bonds in oil that was previously hidden underground, that were in themselves results of other flows of energy and information from a previous chemical or nuclear reaction in space etc. etc. etc.

The point of all this is that science and religion are just two sides of the same coin (with yet another realm sandwiched between them) in that human knowledge is a product of unchanging constants that can be predicted (matter) as well as human experience (which is fundamentally unpredictable as it's a constant viewing of yet another unobserved surface of information over time) and you have a system by which experiences are converted to knowledge via. logic (and these are represented physically in the form of physical laws).

There's no way to detach intelligence, or at least logic, from this process as this removes the ability for us to understand and communicate about any of it and the only thing left possible would be inexplicable, incoherent experience (truly not much different than a void in terms of physical properties).

So the question is really over why there exists any logic to anything at all, and I don't believe science can rely give the answer to this because science can't apply logic to the question if no such logic existed (science is also a product of its (human) creators as well and exists in a form that reflects their (physical) attributes and communication between them etc., though science, as a social institution cannot witness beyond this effectivel "surface of information" and understand the depth of qualities behind conscious experiences behind those physical moments etc.)

So the way I see it is that not only is the universe an unbounded flow of physical information, but conscious experiences similarly arise from an unbounded flow of a broader aspect of existance that includes non-physical qualities as well and these likely arise at specific moments with specific traits that are themselves changing over time and subject to further information beyond them (for example, the conscious experience of an emotion or color is not something that can be physically communicated and you could see this similar to a 4 dimension system attempting to communicate with a 3 dimensional one - one dimension simply doesn't exist as communicable between them, and the 3 dimensional system will be seen as 2 dimensional information + time, but those specific emotions or colors or experiences of timbres of sound etc. are themselves qualities that were revealed over time and someone didn't, for example, always know precisely what emotions or colors or sounds etc. were experiencable until they encountered one of these novel qualities to consciousness and then intergrated it into their equivalent alphabet/language and comprehended it relative to other experiences, but even though an experience conveys novel information, its relationship to past experiences constructs a logical interpretation that is not entirely novel - for example, experiencing pleasure the first time you tasted ice cream could be considered to be largely a novel and unpredictable experience, but experiencing pleasure the second time you tasted ice cream is not as novel and unpredictable and can be seen as an inertia or learning or intelligence that's constructed by the past that imposes a logic upon the interpretation of future events. Without this logic or intelligence, ice cream and tasting etc. wouldn't exist in the first place and even something as fundamental a driving force as gravity would not be comprehensible as every moment you fell down due to gravity would be as entirely unique and inexplicable as every other moment you fell down due to gravity and the fact that it was predictable would be unknowable, so even time couldn't be seen to pass without logical correlations and learning/growth occuring after an experience occured, in which case you can see this knowledge similar to an observer expanding to encompass a greater realm of information over time, and of course this occurs moment to moment similar to constantly viewing new surfaces of information within a hidden component/depth that's described by distance in time).

Yes, I generally always ramble on too much, but the point was simply that the universe would appear to inevitably possess intelligent traits and the remaining question would be as to why they exist and to what extent they're externally imposed upon the universe or internally imposed by an observer or some combination of these.

(Though I'd also add that there are likely realms beyond intelligence as well that fall into a more subjectively experienceable but objectively uncommunicable category, as well as the more irrational class of experienceable but not even subjectively comprehensible category, in which I think this would be indistinguishable from a void of nothing specific).

This is pseudo-science at its best (worst, note that this is irony for all you fundies).

"Creation" did not occur; the word is e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n. Read about it in real texts, not some story of barbarism that is the bible.

Physfan

This post has been edited by Physfan on Jan 16 2008, 09:25 AM

You're going to give science a bad name if this is the quality of information it provides.

Ok, so what did it evolve from? Was the universe created in an instant via. the Big Bang or is it constantly evolving over time etc?

Obviously there's very little difference between the two in terms of present observations as I pointed out above.

And the fact that you appear so rejectful of exploring different possibilities doesn't speak well as to the quality of your insights, but instead reflects a rather religious and emotionally trained dogmatic prejudice in your views.

If there was no "Creation" (includes explained scientifically) then we would not exist.

Also, evolution is change over time. It explains part of the process, but not all. Claiming that it explains everything, is one reason there is a "controversy". Which is why I focused on self-assembly and such, which helps explain all the rest.

I have to agree with Steven. Claiming to know things you cannot fully explain is giving science a bad name. Especially when "Intelligence" science is already routine but just mentioning something academic like that gets us labeled "fundies". Could have at least provided information pertaining to the latest OOL research, which I do keep up on.

And thanks Steve for your opinion!

It sounds to me like you `evidence for the Creator' is entirely based on the fact that science hasn't figured everything out yet. As long as science cannot explain the big bang, you will consider it as evidence for your hypothesis. Once science explains it, whenever that is, you will most likely shift your `evidence' further back in time, to whatever the next unexplained phenomenon is.

Basically (to me at least) your argument reads something like `science hasn't explained this yet, so there must be a creator'.

Gary Gaulin quote.

And why do you suppose SO MANY religious movements come and go? And why do you think evolutionary science is so rock solid, never to suffer even a "ding" from any peer-reviewed science, in the nearly 150 years since Darwin's masterful synthesis of the natural sciences?

Gary Gaulin quote.

That is not a valid refutation of evolution. Evolution ipso facto refers to life. Only after the first "carbon-based life form" came to be, did evolution start on its path. "Eat or be eaten", "survival of the fittest" and the more serious aspects of natural selection have every bit of evidence needed to support the observed evolutionary development of life preserved in the fossil record, from before single-celled organisms up to and including man.
What WAS "evolvable" before evolution? Try stellar evolution! The Hubble Space Telescope has furthered the documentation of areas "where stars are being born." Gas clouds coalesce, stars form and planets can emerge. That is not a valid refutation of evolution, either.

"Science101" quote from your link, which I assume is also a Gary Gaulin quote. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

From the molecular study of intelligence and brain structures to a "collective consciousness" is a big UNTENABLE leap! Just because we don't know how consciousness works, that does not lead to a "necessity" for a "Creator!" Please see my post elsewhere that falsifies the, "we only use 10% of our brains" myth.

The following was my response to a site where a similar strategy to yours is attempted. I truly wish these types of sites could be shut down for fraud and the dissemination of false propaganda. At least, prominent warnings should be required to accompany these misleading, unscientific attempts at brainwashing. "WARNING: The American Association for the Advancement of Science and other academic institutions state that accepting these beliefs is detrimental to one's overall intelligence and mental well-being!"

photojack response to EveryStudent.com

Gary Gaulin, If your "Creator Hypothesis # (fill in the blank)" requires claims of "collective consciousness" or "god is everywhere filling up the whole universe", I will make the following prediction. You will never get it through even the first step or two in the peer-review process to get it published in Nature. I've been involved with this process for a period of nearly 10 years. It won't happen. I am constantly railing against the "dumbing down" of America, and it is nowhere more prominent than in the field of science and the Creation / evolution controversy. Evolution is as well established as ANYTHING in the entire body of science!
I could have touched on the Origin of life hypotheses of Oparin and Urey-Miller that showed amazingly complex organic molecules develop from only the main four known elements and compounds from the early earth environment. Don't you wonder about the molecules that formed naturally are the same ones needed for self-replicating life? That's biochemistry and the "laws" of nature, NOT a "Creator!"

Gary Gaulin quote.

FIRST OFF, I WOULD EDIT THAT MESS! Improper punctuation, phrases instead of sentences, wild leaps of thought and erroneous conclusions permeate that revision of yours. I think you need to revise the revision, put your thoughts out more clearly and think through, from a holistic perspective, your view of life and how it got here. Ever even consider the seriously discussed possibility that life arose elsewhere and was brought in rudimentary form, contained in the frozen mass of comets striking the earth?

Ron quote.

I would modify that to, "How can we even expect to think that we can ever think like a 'Creator'?" AND MY ANSWER WOULD BE, "WE CAN'T, BECAUSE ONE (OR MANY) 'CREATORS' NEVER EXISTED!" (())

NeoDevin,

I think I can solve that problem by making it clearer that this hypothesis is the opposite. All science is here evidence. Not the lack of it.

Can also tell by the way I never once down evolution (in the Intelligence Detection 101 it's connection is briefly discussed) or present any of the evolution-bashing Creationist arguments. But it will help for me to make that clear at the start.

This post has been edited by Gary Gaulin on Jan 16 2008, 08:25 PM