EVOLUTION…THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE OR WHAT I DID ON MY DAY OFF I would seem that the entire evolution vs. creation argument completely excludes the middle. The reasons for this, I think, are many. From the evolutionist point of view, any creation theory constitutes belief in god, stereotypically the belief the KJV god. From the ‘atypical’ creationist point of view, any evolution theory constitutes an assertion that god does not exist. Both mindsets are extreme, exclude the middle, and hamper alternate investigational processes. Consider a well-educated scientist that wants funding to study the possibility of life originating by an other- than-divine or other-than-evolutionary design process. This scientist would find few allies in either theoretical camp. Any initial theories would, no doubt, be rejected out of hand and funding would not be forthcoming. It would seem that both camps require their respective disciples to completely accept the currently popular dogma, or be rejected by the respective community as a whole. This is not to say that the scientist in question could not continue without help, but consider the VAST amount of conclusive evidence he would have to gather before anyone would give the least consideration to any of his theories. Short of conclusive PROOF, he would go unpublished and un-respected, by both sides. The creation group would accuse him of heresy The evolution group would accuse him of attributing life to an un-testable variable. Neither has to be the case. Ironically, newly born theories, like species, are subject to a nasty condition found in the theory of evolution, that is, survival of the adequate. If a newly born addition to the existing family of theories (creation or evolution) is born, it is immediately scrutinized as to its compatibility with existing theories within the same family. If it is compatible, it will be allowed to live and reproduce (theoretical offshoots) to the extent of its usefulness in supporting related theories. If it is not compatible, it will not be fed or nurtured, and in all likelihood, be intentionally killed and therefore not ALLOWED to reproduce. Consider that the theory of evolution exists today as a popular theory because there was an intellectual (as opposed to environmental) niche in which it could survive, be nurtured, grow and reproduce. That niche was the community of logical scientists that were desperately searching for a better theory than “god made us, that’s it, no point in asking how.” The traditional religious community tried their best to kill this new baby theory, but alas could not, because it had an evolutionary niche. Does that mean it’s perfect? No. Evolution does not require that a new species (theory) be perfect, merely adequate. So, for a new scientific (as opposed to religious) theory to emerge, there must first be an intellectual desire to nurture and support it. That support however cannot come from outside the scientific community, since ONLY the scientific community can nurture and support a scientific theory. It will have to come from the fringe element well within the scientific community. These are the scientists who publicly support the theory of evolution, but privately doubt its completeness. After all, weather biological life was initially designed or evolved does not really make a wit of difference, does it? The evolutionary model of ratcheting up successful mutations is a valid and useful algorithm regardless of weather it is powerful enough to have generated life in the first place. All the “IS NOT”/IS TOO” bickering in the world will not affect one single product or process…except one, which is…drum roll…the intelligent design of NEW life, engineered for specific purposes to live in specific environments, in which we, the designers, could not cope. For example, life designed for the planet Mars. Let’s assume we design a somewhat primitive life system capable of existing on the planet Mars. Let’s establish this life system on Mars and nurture it until such time as it becomes self-sufficient. Completing this, lets then leave, and take all overt evidence of our involvement with us. When this system matures, in culture and science, what presumptions will it be able to make concerning its OWN existence? Is it possible for the Martians to develop experiments that test for the intelligent design of biological life WITHOUT postulating the nature of the designer, that is, us? And if it is, would subsequent results then, in-turn, reveal something of our nature? Is their any experiment that the Martians could perform that would identify THEIR life as intelligently designed? Are there any tool marks left in the DNA we invent?
This is really cool food for thought! I have a lot of funny ideas running through my head right now. I can't think of any experiments that the Martians could perform that could prove the existence of Earthly scientists as their intelligent designers but I'm sure that if they had the intelligence to perform any type of experiments then they would also have the ability to communicate with each other in some manner and could pass down information about us (granted, the information might be limited in their understanding of us). Maybe sometime in the future, after they developed recording tools and written means of communication, they'd even be able to document their creation story! Now, it took Earthly scientists seven centuries from the inception of the idea before an Earthly scientist named Goddard (God for short) was able to genetically engineer the perfect, intelligent and immortal Martian life-form. One of his assitants named Lucifer, was real devil. In addition to being jealous of Goddard's superior abilities, Lucifer would feed marshmellows (native to Mars) to the developmental Martians during the experimental phase because it had been discovered that the marshmellows genetically altered them in a way which caused them to have negative and destructive thoughts and desires and which severely limited their life-span. Lucifer liked feeding them the marshmellows because, much to Lucifer's amusement, the Martians would sometimes act out in their marshmellow-induced altered state of consciousness and do things like attack each other, spit in Goddard's face, etc. He also got a kick out of watching the dead ones decay back into nothing but mars-dust. He was a sicko- that Lucifer! As I was saying - it took seven centuries for our scientists to come up with the perfect intelligent Martian species. Of course, before we had the ability place an intelligent species (like us) on Mars, we had to experiment with other life forms like plants, birds and animals and placed them there first. Goddard tells the first intelligent ones about this. He also places the first two (male and female of sorts) in the beautiful and peaceful Cave of Eternity on Mars which contains everything needed for eternal life of the intelligent ones - with one hitch - they must not eat of the marshmellow bush! Goddard warns the first two against this, but, after he's gone, Lucifer shows up and - well, you know the rest of the story! Anyway, after all is said and done, all life forms on Mars would genetically contain a certain level of mars-dust (the stuff which is absolutely necessary for compatibility of life on Mars) - thereby linking all forms of life on Mars genetically. Thousands of years later, theoretically, it appears to the intelligent species that they evolved from other species. They know through revolutionary breakthroughs in mars-dust dating techniques that the planet existed for millions of years, and that all life forms contain mars-dust, so, all life forms (including the intelligent species) must have evolved from something which existed on Mars previously, right? Therefore, the story about Goddard and their creation is just a fairy tale. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Right from the outset, there are two major things that are blatantly wrong with "the excluded middle" (and I'm sure I could think of a few more if needs be.) First, there is a difference between theories and myths: the former are testable (and hence also demonstrable, as far as skeptics are concerned). Second, the real odd thing is that this alleged tweaking had to occur over billions of years, not a mere few centuries (those Martians must have been real slow.) ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
For a minute there I thought the middle ground was the idea that Adam and Eve's kids cross-bred with monkeys. It would explain a lot about 666's obsession with spanking them.
thank you Boris, but as to the questions at the end of the post, do you have any insight???? ------------------ bobbapink department of redundancy department
bobbapink, What's the point of answering those questions if the ground they stand upon is made of air? But fine, here are my answers: I don't think there is a sufficient understanding right now of what differentiates design from natural structure, to postulate any "expereriments" to do that. However, we can apply some loose heuristics. For one, some designs are such that they could in no way be assembled from simpler parts or gradually morphed into their current stage from precursor designs. Such designs are monolithic and rigid; they would definitely represent clear evidence for some external agent of creation. If a design cannot reproduce, and never could -- then it is probably created by an external agent. If a design features an unmistakable watermark, a sort of stamp embedded in it that has virtually no chance of being generated naturally, then there's a good chance that the design is artificial (for example, imagine the number PI encoded to 1000 decimal points in a strand of DNA -- or some such thing). If a very complex design appears suddenly in the geological record, with no preceding simpler versions, then either it was created artificially by an external agent, or arrived from some external environment. But in our particular case, none of the above applies; as to the Martians, it depends on what imaginative scenario you desire to construct for them. Also notice that none of the above presuppose anything about the "designer"; they merely try to discriminate natural and native from unnatural or foreign. See above. See above. Again, see above. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
