The Need for a Theory of Reality
The Big Bang Theory, and The Theory of Darwinian Evolution are unable to provide a complete and logical explanation of where we came from, or how we got here. String Theory doesn’t unify Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity with quantum mechanics. Scientists don’t even know why gravity exists, or what holds an atom together. They can measure these things but have no explanation why the measurements are what they are. To solve the problems they need to be approached with an alternative, unifying theory. So, after all these years of modern science why are there so many unanswered questions when trying to unify quantum mechanics and gravity, and why can’t we envision or imagine a physical representation of where the forces of nature originate? I believe it’s because, science refuses to ask all the pertinent questions, and refuses to make certain assumptions that are necessary to hypothesizing theories that can answer all these questions.
There are some pertinent questions, that I think must at least be asked and assumptions made before any hypothesis can be developed that can unify physics:
1. Did all the order we observe in the universe happen by chance, or is there a designer acting behind the scenes?
2. Is a workable theory possible without a designer?
3. Does having a theory without a designer automatically discount the need of a theory with one?
4. Does introducing a designer open the door for new assumptions and possibly better answers?
5. If the answer to 4 is yes, then do we need to develop new scientific methods in hypothesizing and testing them?
6. Is there any danger in asking these questions, and if so, what are they?
7. How can we mitigate those dangers, or should we?
8. If it appears there could be a designer, should we exclude whoever or whatever it is, from a possible theory, because of these proposed dangers?
I think the mainstream scientific community has already answered question 8 for all of us by deciding what are acceptable theories regardless of the facts or public opinion as stated in Wikipedia quote:
http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design
Reaction from the scientific community[edit]
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science and has no place in a science curriculum.[5] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[94] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[70] Others in the scientific community have denounced its tactics, accusing the ID movement of manufacturing false attacks against evolution, of engaging in misinformation and misrepresentation about science, and marginalizing those who teach it.[95] More recently, in September 2012, Bill Nye warned that creationist views threaten science education and innovations in the United States.[96][97]
Polls[edit]
Several surveys were conducted prior to the December 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, which sought to determine the level of support for intelligent design among certain groups. According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them."[103] Although Zogby polls commissioned by the Discovery Institute show more support, these polls suffer from considerable flaws, such as having a very low response rate (248 out of 16,000), being conducted on behalf of an organization with an expressed interest in the outcome of the poll, and containing leading questions.[104][105][106]
A series of Gallup polls in the United States from 1982 through 2008 on "Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design" found support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced formed of life, but God guided the process" of between 35% and 40%, support for "God created human beings in pretty much their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" varied from 43% to 47%, and support for "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in the process" varied from 9% to 14%. The polls also noted answers to a series of more detailed questions.[107]
God of the gaps[edit]
Intelligent design has also been characterized as a God-of-the-gaps argument,[138] which has the following form:
There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
The gap is filled with acts of God (or intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or intelligent designer).[138]
A God-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.[139] Historians of science observe that the astronomy of the earliest civilizations, although astonishing and incorporating mathematical constructions far in excess of any practical value, proved to be misdirected and of little importance to the development of science because they failed to inquire more carefully into the mechanisms that drove the heavenly bodies across the sky.[140] It was the Greek civilization that first practiced science, although not yet a mathematically oriented experimental science, but nevertheless an attempt to rationalize the world of natural experience without recourse to divine intervention.[141] In this historically motivated definition of science any appeal to an intelligent creator is explicitly excluded for the paralysing effect it may have on the scientific progress.
http://en.wikipedia....elligent_design, end quote
Even though the general population isn’t highly educated on possible intelligent design theories, mainstream science’s refusal to accept them as a possibility hardly qualifies them as experts either. What attempt has been made at developing testable scientific methods, if any? When the scientific community refuses to ask all possible questions about how the universe came into existence,( created by intelligence or spontaneously popping into existence), solving fundamental problems will appear nearly insurmountable. Consider the following argument.
A researcher decides to reconstruct the development of modern breeds of dogs from the earliest known breeds from the written records and other historical and fossil records and write a scientific explanation on how to selectively breed dogs, and some of the pros and cons. After researching back a couple branches of breed development he realizes that men and their decisions played a pivotal role in developing the different modern breeds. This leads him to ask the following question, “What does a man have to physically do to selectively breed dogs?”
With a little research he finds written records and physical evidence of the different breeds and gets the following answer, “Some man had to use his intelligence to select and sort animals into separate pens and record the process so that specific breeds could be developed.”
This led him to the following questions, “What happens to the atoms in a man’s mind so that intelligent decisions can be made, and actions be planned and remembered. And then, how are those plans enacted through muscular movements in his arms, and legs, and controlled through sensory interpretation of eyesight and balance?”
With a little research he finds out certain parts of the brain control certain functions and thoughts, which leads him to ask the following question, “How does an “idea” for selective breeding which has an abstract unverifiable origin, arrange the atoms in a man’s mind, that sets up circuits that sends signals to control memory, muscles and sensory organs, which turn something as abstract as an idea, into a physically measurable and verifiable action that selectively breeds dogs?” He realizes that the origin of the idea causes the movement of the atoms in the brain, but he can’t verify through scientific measurement how or why something as abstract as a thought or idea actually moves physical matter.
He realizes the origin of ideas aren’t scientifically verifiable. For example, he realizes that an idea like “move a finger” changes the atoms in the brain to set up the circuits to move the finger, but even if he could see how the atoms moved, he could never measure how the “idea” caused the atom movement. Movement requires changes in force, and how does a nonphysical abstract thing like an idea cause the force that is required for a physical cause, like move brain atoms, to happen.
That leads him to the following conclusion. Ideas and how they move atoms are not able to be measured or verified in natural ways, and therefore are supernatural in nature. Since, all scientific theories must have natural origins without supernatural causes, the supernatural origin of the idea of selective dog breeding, is not scientifically viable as a theory for the origin of the different dog breeds. Besides, most of the people that recorded the records are dead and can’t be physically presented today to verify that they actually selected, moved, and penned the dogs, or if some other natural means of selection occurred instead.
So, he tried sorting and penning dogs to see if he could redevelop some of the breeds and substantiate his theory that way. He wasn’t a very good dog handler and failed. Besides, he couldn’t come up with a scientific explanation of how he developed his own thoughts, or how his thoughts and ideas translated into his body movement, so he decided it was best that he develop a new theory.
Therefore, he hypothesized dog breeds were developed through some not yet fully understood mechanism that might have involved an intelligent decision that he couldn’t replicate. Even though it appeared that intelligent decisions carefully selected the dogs that have certain characteristics seemed to originate from human bodies that are part of nature, he couldn’t explain the origin of the ideas or how the ideas translated into physical movement in the human mind and body. Since he couldn’t explain the origin of human thought and intelligence, he decided that what appears as intelligence must just be luck, or random actions. Since, he can’t come up with a natural origin for human creativity, there must be another explanation to explain this implied creativity. So he theorizes, there must be enough disorder somewhere else in the universe to offset the implied order apparent in dog breeding thus, he came up with a theory which avoided the need for intelligence to guide the selection of dogs in developing breeds and called it natural selection.
The interesting thing about this story is that all the information needed for the different dog breeds already was in the DNA of the original dog breed and was selectively used. We accept as fact, that through unexplainable intelligent thought, that unexplainably moves brain atoms, man established the different dog breeds. We also accept the fact that through the same unexplainable maneuvering of brain matter, man through hundreds of years of trial and error, developed flight in fighter jets. But, we won’t give credit to some intelligent being that through similar intelligent thoughts moving atoms, quarks, and matter in similar ways that our thoughts move the quarks of our brains, developed atoms, which he organized into molecules, which he organized into an eagle that could fly circles around a jet plane.
I think the question of, “How this intelligent designer ordered the particles of matter, dark energy, and dark matter into the observable structures and living organisms we observe today?” should be asked, and theories hypothesized. I think it is illogical not to do so. Also, I think it is as dangerous of a proposition to decide that there isn’t a purpose for the creation, as it is to decide that Henry Ford didn’t have a purpose for the automobile. Otherwise a good use for the automobile could be to reduce world hunger through population control, by deaths from car accidents and smog, instead of transporting food and people.
Since, all creative thought whether human or Divine could be considered supernatural, I think using supernatural origin of the cause, does not discount the validity of a theory, otherwise by the example above, all science is in danger. Therefore, I propose that an intelligent designer, created the universe for a specific purpose, governed by a set of physical laws that intuitively arise out of the structure of space and matter. We observe the effects of these physical laws, and explain them, by quantum mechanics, and the theories of relativity among others
