OPINION

  I feel very sorry for biologists, they cling to the theory of evolution as if it were set in the tablets of stone which Moses brought down from Mt Siani! It is not. Scientific theories never are and never should be. Ever.

  I do not claim to have put in the work to be able to present any kind of attack on the theory as a whole, however, certain inadequacies within the theory as it stands, have lead me to understand that, any theory, left almost untouched for 100 years, is in great, if not critical, need of revision and additions.

  Secondly, I worry greatly about just how much of biology as a whole is based on such a simplistic starting theory. I worry that Biology might even go the way of psychoanalysis, based upon Freud, and turn into little more than an 'alternative belief system' or religion.

  Nature is fundamentally beautiful yes, intrinsically simple no. No way. How many more times must I hear the same old questions, questions which are supposed to probe the inner nature of subjects, but instead, cause intelligent scientists to go back around in circles.

  "What is the survival advantage of that?", an interesting question, and since I am not here to blow the entire theory to shreds, I am sure you might learn something from the asking, however, when asked time and time again, about every single feature, without ever posing a different question, the exercise soon becomes a job for a mere computer, and not a thinking, reasoning human being.

  So what is my opinion of the current state of the theory of evolution? Recently, attempts have been made to justify everything in the simple terms of the original theory. I have been impressed by them, in that the intellectual loops were flown with great skill and dexterity, however, I have in no way been convinced by them, and so ultimately they have failed. (Or maybe, in the opinion of the author, it is I who has failed, failed to be turned from my 'beliefs', I treat my brain with more respect than to do that so easily).

  Well, putting it simply, does the theory of evolution answer all the questions? In my opinion the short answer is no. This, to me, suggests that we should be actively looking to enhance the current theory or throw it out. However, no-one seems to have the desire, the intelligence, or maybe just the nerve to question Darwin, as the whole answer, and so evolution as a theory has been left to stagnate.

  The most obvious way I can think of to revive the now stinking corpse of natural selection, is to inject new ideas from other disciplines.

  Natural selection, implies a titanic struggle within nature, however it is my belief, that as with the titanic, such a struggle for existence would be doomed to failure. Just as Capitalism is unsustainable, so, such a ruthless drive to win, above all others, would eventually, lead to destruction, a destruction which would have occurred long before our creation, and would have in fact occurred, every time, thus barring the creation of highly complex living forms.

  The reason that when asked if they see 'intelligence' in nature, that people generally do see the hand of God, is not, a religious one, or as the scientists would have us believe, a simplistic, superstitious, even primitive belief system due to the fact that they do not understand science...

  It is because, their brains, incredibly clever at making assessments with very little knowledge and great perception, tell them that there is intelligence at work in nature. And those countless individual brains, are correct. Nature is not blind, Nature does not stumble across solutions to problems via an ongoing struggle with death, Nature is itself intelligent.

  God may well not be the hackneyed portrait of the old man in the beard, but then again no-one has been saying that for centuries... As I can recall, the best religion could come up with was, that 'God' was all around us, within everything, everything that is except disorder. Well, for a totally non religious person such as myself, I have to find that the priest's were closer to the truth than they knew, and closer than the scientists of today would give them credit for.

  There is no real doubt that intelligence and consciousness are present within the human brain, we do not understand the mechanisms, however we can deduce that any system must be as complex as a brain, to exhibit signs of intelligence and consciousness and 'life'. Nature is very much more complex, and although we cannot yet understand just how, It is my opinion that the evolution of life is not controlled just by struggle, but by a form of intelligence.

  I think it is important to clarify just how little I am adjusting the theory, I am not necessarily saying that as in GIA, the earth is a single living organism, however when I read it, I may harden to this view. I am also not saying that life on earth is conscious, I draw a strong line between intelligence, and conscious self awareness, and believe that we will be able to produce 'intelligent' machines, but that they will be as dead as the current crop.

  Humans have created computers in a very short time, and this is born out by their simplistic processes. Nature has already proved to us that she can create a far more powerful computer, capable of both intelligent thought and conscious thought, don't be fooled into thinking that she could not have used the trick before, in the very creation of the evolutionary process.

  The missing ingredient from Darwin's theory of natural selection, is simply that, in systems as complex as living ones, intelligence arises. Consciousness?, I have no idea, I do not yet understand. However, our lack of understanding will continue, until we grasp the nettle, and think of ways in which evolutionary systems are connected to intelligence.

  Biologists, do not shun the idea of the watchmaker. Look for intelligence in the evolutionary process, and I believe you will find it. This will not lead us back unto the temptation of religions, it will, in fact lead us to discover more about how intelligence and consciousness work. You have the a 'workable' solution to this conundrum, within your discipline, use it, and maybe you will be able to beat the physicists to the golden prise of understanding MIND.

  The evolutionist starts with a "theory" or "Faith" in a particular origin of
nature. A faith not drawn from what has been observed but from a wild assumption
that the current laws of nature have their origin in a big-bang. SHAZAM! Their
theories are tentative answers to questions about nature. They continually change
and revise these ideas to reflect the world as they see it today. It all hinges
on an unprovable premise, "uniformatarian principle" that they have been bold
enough to declare as fact not to be refuted. They just assume it must be true
rather than that evidence of some kind should compel them to except it as the
best choice. This is fundamentally antithetical to true science. The pure
scientific method is set aside to worship at the alter of evolution. Fanatically
they fight against all other theories. The result is the imposing of their faith
and philosophy of life on the innocent children of the world. This is done
through our schools and colleges, while at the same time discriminating against
other philosophies. This has created autonamaton evolutionist who see themselves
as highly evolved beings fathered by a big bang out of nowhere and going nowhere.
They are unable or willing to accommodate other theories, philosophies or faiths.
Claiming for themselves alone the true process of critical thinking and the
rational examination of so-called scientific evidence. There is a total
abandonment of intellectual honesty that calls for the sceptical scrutiny of
their fellow man. Thus the affect is to declare theirs the only true "FAITH",
defining true science through coloured evolutionary glasses. All else becomes
foolishness to them. As prophets of an unfounded idea and calling it science
they have done great harm to the education system in all fields of study and
to human society as a whole. 

  Actually, and realize how dated this all seems, your article is quite
thoughtful, well reasoned, and very similar to my own thoughtful and well
reasoned opinion.  Del's response is pretty much the hackneyed rubbish one
associates with the dogmatized creationist who would discredit scientific
theory and research based on percieved flaws in scientific method.  Without
being pedantic, if your arguement relies on religious faith, revealed truth
or metaphysical reality, it isn't science.  It doesn't mean it isn't true.
It doesn't mean that one should not be motivated to search for truth.  But
it cannot be the ANSWER to which all facts are made to fit.

  Science is not perfect and it is not a religion. It is a method, dating to
the pre Socratics, that posed the question, "What can we discover about
nature if we Do Not rely on metaphysical explanations?"
  
Democritus gave us the basis for atomic theory.
Aristotle observed and conjectured.  Was he always right...No.  His
observations were usually astute, but occassionally flawed.  His
conjectures were insightful, but often flawed.
Galileo gave us the importance of experimentation and the importance
of defending one's theories against religious persecution.  (I am
reasured that the Church of the Creation may concede the existance of
Watson and Crick in the year 2453).
Francis Bacon gave us the division of scientific disaplines.
Descarte gave us coordinates to work with and inserted our minds
into our observations.
Newton put a lot of it together and gave us the mechanics of the
universe.
Darwin gave us a framework for life.
Einstein put most of the universe beyond our reach.
Bohr made most of the rest of the universe incomprehensible.
Watson and Crick gave us a means of filling in Darwin's framework.
Hawkings made the universe touchable-side to side, top to bottom.

  Science is merely a way of asking questions of nature.  It can be
misused to explain, reinforce and prove revealed, religious truth.
Only in the misuse is there a problem.  There can be bad, false science.
But scientific method has consistently prevailed.  I don't lose much
sleep over the attacks on evolution (and now big bang theory) by
religious fundamentalist.  The pseudoscience of their arguments creates
it's own house of cards destined to collapse by either Newton's
gravitational constant, Einstein's general relativity, or chaos theory.
Neither do I worry about their indoctrination of young minds with
revealed truth from the bible, koran, bagavadgita, etc.  Scientific
curiosity tends to be a powerful force.  Few societies have been able
to suppress it for long.  The Soviet Union did manage to suppress
evolution (they didn't like the random mutation aspect) and Russia is
only now catching up to the rest of the world.

  I would finish this off with the statement, revealed truth is truth.
You either accept it or don't.  If it's truth to you, believe it.
But it is not scientific truth.  They are different things by
definition.  I can't quite say that, because, I would also have to say
that science tries to explain what is there, and not explain the
content of a persons heart.  Unfortunately, I recently read "A General
Theory of Love", which does a better job of explaining that than
religion has done.  Oh well.

  Please tell me what you thought...

A page from James David Chapman's website.   Located at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~jchap/   Site mirrored here at: http://www.j.chap.btinternet.co.uk
This page last updated:   My rating for the page:	Go to.... Contents James Chapman Glandular Fever/CFS Opinions Thinking out loud Programming PIC microcontrollers 256 byte games Barebones DOS email Build your own PC DOS tutorial Photography Music Astral Projection The Paranormal My Ghost stories Web Tips Cellular Automata Solar Eclipse pictures Roach Races! Silly Internet Jargon WWW Links