Philosophical is in purple. No "Creator in gaps" allowed.
The two lead sentences in the abstract are etched in stone, to remain. They are the language of science/logic version of what highly religious "Roytheman" said in religious words, their statement to science, that began the hypothesis project. New versions were a result of moving from forum to forum, improving from the challenge.
This hypothesis does NOT require evolutionary theory to be presented, either pro or con. In this way there is no evolution bashing, or evolution promoting.
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.
This is meant to be an educational challenge. In time 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 to explain what this is, and why the name is in this case appropriate.
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.
CREATOR HYPOTHESIS - Version #10
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 known 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".
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.
The "supernatural" is hereby defined as where science ends, and the unknown begins. Until Ben Franklin demonstrated to all that lightning is an electrical force, the supernatural was used to explain it as wrath by a Creator upon sinners. In the same way, this hypothesis is to explain emergence of human intelligence, from the perspective of intelligence, that exists in molecules.
Accepting that this "Creator" is whatever science leads to, makes all science, only evidence for it. Especially when where we came from is explained, with science that connects us to intelligence in matter itself, and the miraculous "Poof!" of self-assembly.
METHODS
A computer model(1) using the guess/memory mechanism (also found in evolution) demonstrates a powerful layered intelligence that exists in matter.
Showing of a single interconnected intelligent system that is first evidenced as a "truth table" symbolic representation of matter that extends into the subatomic.
DESCRIPTION
(bring science in references into here)
DISCUSSION
Atoms exhibit behavior which can be shown using "Truth Tables". Molecules exhibit "Molecular Intelligence"(7). Cells exhibit "Cellular Intelligence"(8). Multicellular organisms sometimes exhibit brain produced intelligence as is studied by neuroscience.
Intelligence does not necessarily need to be conscious to exist. Therefore it is possible to describe "Intelligence" to its most rudimentary beginning, in matter, from which higher levels of intelligence emerge.
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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS
Studying intelligence down to the molecular level is a very academic, useful science.(1,5,6,7) The known levels are atom-molecule-cell-organism-biosphere.(2)
Evolution can be viewed from the perspective of intelligence.
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)
Science is showing that we can in time understand how we were "Created" making it possible to scientifically understand this entity called "Creator".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. This hypothesis predicts that the philosophical possibility that science can only evidence a "Creator" is true. (see all but 20)
Amen...(20)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Symbiosis (Bio, Cleveland-ID) review-intro, Cletus77 (IDKWTFIGO, MassLive-Rel) review discussion, Sebastian Dalman (paleo, Massachusetts) hypothesis paper structuring lesson, 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, PhysOrg Evo/Cre forum, Dan Beyer (KCFS) needed ref. 11, .
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/experiments/cellmembrane.html
4) NSTA members: "Demonstrating the Self-Assembly of the Cell Membrane" http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/4/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) Molecular Nanobiointelligence Computers, National Cancer Center, June 21, 2005, Byoung-Tak Zhang, Center for Bioinformation Technology (CBIT) & Biointelligence Laboratory, School of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University
http://bi.snu.ac.kr/Courses/4ai06f/NCC2005.pdf
8) Synthesizing cellular intelligence and artificial intelligence for bioprocesses, P.R. Patnaik, Institute of Microbial Technology, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh-160 036, India
http://www.aseanbiotechnology.info/Abstract/21018478.pdf
9) Intelligence Generator computer model was adapted from the book (robot made virtual): Heiserman, D. L., How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, TAB Books, Inc., 1979.
10) Photodriven reduction and oxidation reactions on colloidal semiconductor particles: Implications for prebiotic synthesis Xiang V. Zhang a, Shelby P. Ellery a, Cynthia M. Friend a,b, Heinrich D. Holland c, F.M. Michel d, Martin A.A. Schoonen d, Scot T. Martin a,∗
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environmental-chemistry/publications/XZ_JPP_2007.pdf
11) Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral PhotochemistryXiang V. Zhang and Scot T. Martin*DiVision of Engineering and Applied Sciences, HarVard UniVersity, Cambridge, Massachusetts
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/jacsat/asap/pdf/ja066103k.pdf
12) Clays May Have Aided Formation of Primordial Cells
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak3.html
20) Note: "Amen" is not part of the science but see "SUNDAY SERMON - CREATIVE FORCE".
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=186
-
