190 lines
9.5 KiB
HTML
190 lines
9.5 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type">
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<title>Created by Ingenious Design</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<body style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(98, 212, 255);" alink="#000099" link="#000099" vlink="#990099">
|
|
|
|
|
|
<big><big><big><big>Created by Ingenious Design<br>
|
|
<small>by Douglas J. Del Tondo, Esq</small>.<br>
|
|
</big></big></big></big>
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<big><big><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rigorously Scientific Assumptions Must Be Employed</span><br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Richard Dawkins is the world's foremost defender of orthodox Darwinian evolution.<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dawkins recently said in a radio interview on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k&feature=related">NPR in 2007</a>
|
|
and again in a video interview captured in Ben Stein's <span style="font-style: italic;">Expelled</span>(2008)
|
|
that it is a proper scientific endeavor to detect whether life
|
|
originated on earth by a designer as long as we posit/assume
|
|
this designer
|
|
(or designers) evolved elsewhere. With that objective and that
|
|
assumption, the
|
|
investigation of design-features in life on earth, etc., would be
|
|
a purely scientific venture. It would also fit within Darwinian theory.
|
|
That theory assumes and proves, Dawkins claims, the ability to create
|
|
consciousness from pure matter by means of trial and error. Thus, as
|
|
long as all assumptions are materialistic, Dawkins says science can
|
|
investigate
|
|
intelligent design as the root cause for life on earth.<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
I accept Dr. Dawkins' honesty and his intention behind what some
|
|
mockingly call the Alien Design Theory. As long as I vigorously
|
|
assume I am investigating an alien non-terrestrial culture, and I do
|
|
not ascribe to it supernatural powers to solve knotty problems of
|
|
causation, I am engaging in a legitimate scientific endeavor. <br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Hence, I will reverse engineeer the steps involved in various puzzles to show how an ingenious design is <span style="font-weight: bold;">absolutely</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">necessary</span>
|
|
for various phenomena in Nature. I will prove they were established by
|
|
an ingenious design harnessing the known laws of physics. Such a
|
|
pursuit is what Dawkins concedes is legitimate, and this is what every
|
|
scientist should accept as a legitimate scientific inquiry. I am not
|
|
ruling out miracles can happen or that God exists. (I believe in both.)
|
|
Rather, I am merely exploring what phenomena <span style="font-style: italic;">require</span> intelligence as an explanation, but which <span style="font-style: italic;">do not require</span> any assumption of a miracle whereby the intelligence <span style="font-style: italic;">has to be</span> God by classical definition. <br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
As a result, my inquiry is bounded on two sides so that it cannot be
|
|
used to establish a religious belief. It does not depend on miracles,
|
|
and it assumes the designer/ers evolved from matter. Therefore, I
|
|
envision one day this theory of Ingenious Design by Non-Terrestrial
|
|
Intelligence (ID-NTI) could be legally taught in a classroom. That's my
|
|
opinion as a lawyer.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
The reason it can be taught is that there is no religious content in
|
|
ID-NTI. It can only be argued such an
|
|
inquiry can scientifically confirm a belief in an alien
|
|
intelligence elsewhere. No one can say this scientific inquiry will
|
|
prove <span style="font-style: italic;">necessarily </span>the existence of God as classicly defined.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
That is not to say that a person of faith will be discouraged by such
|
|
evidence. They may claim such a designer or designers revealed by this
|
|
investigation could also have supernatural powers, and thus be God. But
|
|
that can only be addressed in a Metaphysics classroom. Science cannot
|
|
study <span style="font-style: italic;">by definition</span> the supernatural, even if it were intelligent. That's why such discussion will not be found within the ID-NTI movement.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
I am not merely being coy and quiet about who I think is the likely
|
|
designer, as the current ID movement was found in the Dover case to
|
|
represent (whether rightly or wrongly).<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Instead, I am agreeing to a materialist assumption that I am
|
|
investigating an alien non-terrestrial intelligence. I am personally
|
|
not a materialist, but a theist. Yet, my theism is irrelevant for this
|
|
investigation. Instead, I will offer theories that are purely
|
|
scientific of how an intelligence could create mechanisms or a means to
|
|
manipulate matter to form, for example, the Sloan Great Wall.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">The Example of the Sloan Great Wall</span><br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
The Sloan Great Wall is a good illustration of what ID-NTI represents.
|
|
This structure was discovered in 1985 by Geller and Huchra while
|
|
working as astrophysicists for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center of
|
|
Astrophysics. <br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
The Sloan Great Wall is a large scale space structure 1
|
|
billion light years over our North Pole. It is made of 11,000
|
|
galaxies who individually serve as nodes in a honeycomb structure.
|
|
Its overall exterior form is patterned, even in 3-D, to
|
|
conform to the image of a little man with a head, two arms, a
|
|
torso and two legs (known as the Homonculus). <br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
In the chapter on the Great Wall, I will explain the origin of
|
|
this structure wholly by showing that some intelligence employing
|
|
the laws of physics in ingenious ways could levitate matter by
|
|
electromagnetism and stabilize it to conform precisely to the
|
|
Homonculus. By the same mechanism, an intelligent designer
|
|
could maintain the interior structure using 11,000 galaxies
|
|
where each galaxy one-by-one is fitted as nodes within thousands
|
|
of hexagons. This is a feat that gravity alone could never
|
|
do, but an ingenious mechanism can do, and is the only plausible
|
|
and necessary explanation in <span style="font-style: italic;">Science </span>for the Sloan Great Wall.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Thus, in the analysis of the Sloan Great Wall, I am not resorting
|
|
to explaining the unknown by miracles. My explanation does not depend
|
|
on the supernatural. Yet, at the same time, while I discuss this in
|
|
terms of an alien culture 1 billion light years from us, I am not
|
|
committed to materialism philosophically. I can discuss the same
|
|
facts later in Metaphysics. There I can propose non-scientific but
|
|
no less truth-seeking theorems to analyze whether this
|
|
intelligence is, in fact, God. But in science, I must make the
|
|
scientific assumption that consciousness is truly an emergent property
|
|
of matter, and that's all I am investigating in the Sloan Great Wall --
|
|
whether an intelligence one billion light years away exists, and I
|
|
assume it evolved naturalistically and lacks supernatural powers. <br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Ingenious Design by a Non-Terrestrial Intelligence</span><br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
This book/webpage
|
|
also seeks to establish the correct theorem to prove intelligent
|
|
design. The correct theorem, I believe, is to
|
|
prove simply an ingenious level of design. This is exhibited
|
|
in a
|
|
multitude of specific engineering marvels in our universe. If we
|
|
are willing to challenge ourselves, and truly think hard, we can
|
|
perceive GENIUS of an extraordinary magnitude in natural mechanisms
|
|
that was not
|
|
conceivably produced by trial and error or wholly
|
|
unintelligent processes. This is true of DNA,
|
|
fractals, protein folding, irridescence in butterfly wings, human
|
|
eyesight,
|
|
and the Sloan Great Wall, etc., to just mention a few such phenemona.
|
|
Only by employing all our greatest
|
|
scientific minds to explain the engineering principles latent in
|
|
biological and natural structures can we pay proper respect to the
|
|
alien designer (or designers) that Dawkins conceded may be the proper <span style="font-style: italic;">scientific </span>explanation for a natural phenemonon.<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Hence, in this book/webpage, I have no intention to
|
|
prove that anything was created by a divine
|
|
being. That is for metaphysicists and/or natural history to determine
|
|
from other theorems not presented in this work. I wish them well, but
|
|
they are pursuing a different line of study than what science examines.
|
|
<br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Intelligent Design Movement Must Re-Invent Itself</span><br>
|
|
<br>
|
|
Intelligent design, to be truly scientific, must be ID-NTI. This may
|
|
not please the supporters of ID as presently established.
|
|
However, those ID scientists committed to science must concede
|
|
ID-NTI is the only way that in <span style="font-style: italic;">science</span>
|
|
the topic can be legitimately discussed. Science cannot function or be
|
|
useful if it is ever permitted to resolve any difficulty by resort
|
|
to a supernatural explanation. This is why trying to change the
|
|
definition of Science to permit ID <span style="font-style: italic;">without limits</span> to <span style="font-style: italic;">materialist assumptions</span> will never succeed.<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a book which is a work in progress. For the latest version, click below.<br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<a href="Lessons/CreatedbyIngeniousDesign.pdf">PDF Version </a> <a href="CBID-webpage.html.html">HTML Version</a><br>
|
|
|
|
<br>
|
|
|
|
Latest edit: June 23, 2008 <br>
|
|
|
|
|
|
</big></big>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|