Which Ones Are Scientific

CONCEPTUAL VIEWS - FOUR DEBATERS:

Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design & Hybrids © 2009-2010

5 Parts

By Dr. George Grebens

Update: 01 September 2010

Table of Contents: Introduction - Neo Evolutionary View - Creation Science View - Intelligent Design View - Hybrid View.

INTRODUCTION

It is only during the 1950’s that the Theory of Evolution had been tested scientifically in the lab for the first time*1. Prior to this, for over a hundred years biologists, archeologists, geologists, as well as the ‘social Darwinists’ and eugenicists, grouped and positioned themselves to define the scope of a new Darwinian scientific approach. The original pre-Darwinian evolutionists*2 included: Herbert Spencer (‘survival of the fittest’), Jean Baptiste Lamark (‘inheritance of acquired characters’), and Thomas Malthus (‘population densities & economics’) have debated the concepts. It is, however, upon Charles Darwin’s ‘natural selection of the species’ and his followers such as Francis Galton (eugenics) and others who launched the momentum that went beyond geology and biology but to all other branches of human endeavor. This statistical progressivist (evolutionary) thrust has not only drawn economists such as Karl Marx (‘struggle of the classes’), but also generically reflected the influence of the 18th and 19th century philosophers such as Georg W.F. Hegel (‘dialectics to the ideal/mind’); Ludwig Feuerbach (‘humanized Hegelianism’), Henri L. Bergson (‘creative evolution’), and Friedrich Nietzsche (‘will to power & death of God’). Each in turn, for example, Nietzsche’s foundation, branched out to Karl Jung’s psychiatry and to the politics of Adolf Hitler (‘superior vs. inferior & parasitic races’).

During the early 20th century, biologists attempted to synthesize several biological specialties under the Darwinian theory of evolution. During the period 1918 – 1932, population geneticists synthesized natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Julian Huxley in his work ‘Evolution: The Modern Synthesis’ (1942) he documented activities, information and participating members who from the 1930’s and 1940’s created the new evolutionary synthesis. This group included: R.A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Sewall Wright, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson and other synthesizers. This and similar groups recognized the limitations and uncertainty that the Darwinian Theory posed. To remedy this, they: defined all terms within the uniformitarian scope. They explored the mechanical, biological and processive alternatives and formulated a materialistic uniformitarian model. This model was to be flexible enough to allow them to collect, describe, filter, interpret, predict data and information inn scientific terms. This allowed them to establish a knowledge-base for further application. This approach had been applied to the definition of proteins and the interpretation of forensic evidence (fossils), and definition of species. However, during that time, this evolutionary endeavor also weighed into the implementation of dangerous social engineering projects and techniques such as those conducted in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Each brought dire consequences.

During the 1950’s scientific investigative and experimental strategies, techniques and tools produced a vast amount of empirical data and information. This allowed the scientific community to test their scientific models and the derived or implied predictions. This also allowed scientists to adjust their foundational premises. Having received funds to significantly upgrade and staff their labs, scientific results led to the emergence of neo-evolutionary views*3. These neo-evolutionists went beyond the classical Darwinian ideas of natural selection and gradualism. Neo-evolutionists explored the DNA and genetics through mathematical models, kin selection, altruism, and speciation. Here, attempts were made to identify biological levels at which evolution (natural selection of species) occurred. Some hypothesized that the gene is the only true unit of selection (Richard Dawkins ‘The Selfish Gene’). Dawkins suggested a wide variety of cross-species migration - a progressive movement across up to five infrastructural levels among the species. The interpretation of the geologic data, in this view was to support evidence for uniformitarian, progressive, qualitative, inter-related (linked) patterns (e.g., homology and cladistic studies)*4.

NEO-EVOLUTIONARY VIEW

Neo-Evolutionists updated and positioned their ‘Modern Evolutionary Synthesis’*5 as a strategic view, which includes five basic theses:

1) Evolutionary principles and phenomenon can be substantiated and explained through known genetic mechanisms and processes.

2) Evolutionary principles imply small incremental genetic changes. Natural selection directs these genetic changes. Such selection includes: geographical separation, isolation and extinction. These lead to speciation and not saltation (leaps)*6

3) The change mechanism - no matter how small - is caused through environmental phenotypal selection and not through ‘genetic drift.’*7

4) Natural population that carries genetic diversity also drives evolution. Ecological factors (e.g., niche occupation, barriers to the gene flow) affect natural selection in the wild.

5) Historical observations from different levels in paleontology and extrapolations from micro to macro evolution, and not empirical data, are sufficient to help explain the evolutionary process. This would not necessarily mean a constant rate of changes (gradualism).

Evolutionists agree on each of the five strategic basic points of the modern evolutionary synthesis. These points reflect objectives, strategy, policy, procedures, rules & regulations and the very nature of the neo-evolutionists’ scientific direction, defense, and output. The five points also show that evolutionists use:

• Genetic ‘mechanisms’ and ‘processes’ that are limited to mechanical, organic and possibly processive models and do not predict information-software, nano robotic level evidence at the chromosomal nano-engineering levels*8. Evolutionists must explain evolution’s micro and macro changes not through indirect scientific ‘conditions’ while using tools that are applied to larger or bulkier systems, but use tools for information sub-chromosomal management levels*9. Sub-microscopic magnitudes and information technology would affect all modern synthesis’ points.
• The five points do not empirically address macro-change or transpecific evolution. Scientific testing must foresee cross informational infrastructures*10 (e.g. theses #5, recommends creative ‘extrapolations’).
• Comparative anatomy, such as the analogous resemblance between existing, fossilized and intermediate forms: limbs and vestigial organs - are not really limited to single interpretation or explanations. For example, Beverly Halstead affirmed that no species can be considered ancestral to any other*11.
• As stated above, numerous theories have been proposed for natural selection - genetic mutation ‘mechanics’ and processes, but simulation processes conducted in the lab still do not provide reliable or valid measurements. Nor do such techniques help improve predictions. Such simulations must go beyond linear and adaptive change. These must account for up to five categories of change (copy, adaptation, re-engineering, re-design, invention) and various levels of their supervisory infrastructures.

The basic neo-evolution methodology and data relationships are summarized in the following formula:

 Neo-Evolution Scientific Model:

       C + M + T + V

        ------------------- = A + K + S + P

          L + E + R

Legend:

C= Change (e.g., genetic mutation, flow, mechanisms)

M= Matter

T= Time

V= Environmental stress

L= Relativism

E= Uniformitarianism (long ages + materialism)

R= Reductionism

A= Simple (primitive) to complex (natural selection) across 5 infrastructural change levels: micro-/macro-evolution

K= Knowledge-base (materialism, uniformitarianism)

S=Standards

P= Scientific process (evolutionary/materialistic unidormitarian realism) (Dialectical materialism) 

This neo-evolution summary/model formula is compared with those of the Creation and Intelligent Design scientific models below.

Looking at this evolutionary formula, some scientists as early as the 1960’s and later in the 1980’s sought to provide alternate interpretations of the scientific data.

The evolution formula had at least four inherent theoretical weaknesses:

1. Present conditions, standards and rates are not at all representative of what might have existed in the past. There is evidence that conditions and structures in the past had been much more robust than they are today.
2. It is premature to scientifically consider that a closed materialistic system is the only alternative or source for scientific evidence. – e.g., information principles, emergence of non-repeatable universal singularities.
3. The evolution concept has been reduced and doctored up from its original wider synonymic scope. Currently, it provides a much narrower concept that cannot be supported through statistical random probability or possibility. Earlier groups of scientists recognized these limitations of the evolution formula.
4. The new generation of Creation scientists did three things: a) re-examined the many aspects of the scientific method, scientific assumptions, scope, evidence, data and structures*12; b) participated in medium-to-high level public debates with evolutionists. During these debates the results of the two scientific models were compared and c) the Institute of Creation Research (ICR) scientists published genuine and serious scientific research*13.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s the evolutionists were forced to re-examined their positions and re-position themselves on many scientific points.

CREATION SCIENCE VIEW

As seen above, neo-evolution scientists provide five biology-based points through their 'Evolutioany Modern Synthesis.' If scientists who promote the Creation Science Model were to provide their own biology-based 'Creation Modern Synthesis' points and ran it parallel with that of the evolutionist's 'Synthesis' then the 'Creation Modern Synthesis' would run something as follows:

1. Creation principles and phenomena can best be substantiated and explained through the cellular genetic infrastructural and information technology within each species at the chromosome level in life forms. This discovery has been promoted by the 'Intelligent Design' group (see www.intelligentdesign.org</a> and www.discovery.org</a>)

2. Living species provide evidence for 'pre-programmed' (inherited) capability to live, adapt (re-align, micro-change), survive in challenging environments, communicate, and copy (self-replicate) within the specie scope. Differentiation from a prototype or parent provides evidence for the specie's ability to retain, replicate genetic information, and even becoming non-interfirtile within parent groups under challenging environments (i.e., not macro-change into other species). At each stage of change, there's evidence of a loss and not a gain of genetic information. In other words, it is inconceivable that a collection of all of today's species types (e.g., cats) can be repackaged genetically to reflect the original cat specie or 'syngameons'. It is evident today that after multiple generations, too much genetic information is being lost each time a branching of the specie occurs. So much so that it has been estimated that within 300 generations a specie becomes extinct due to its accumulated genetic 'noise.' 

3. Natural selection doesn't exceed pre-programmed (inherited) infrastrucural scopes. Change can appear at the lower two qualitative infrastructural levels: 1) copy (or 'no change'); 2) adaptation (re-alignment or micro-change); but does not cross the three upper qualitative infrastructural barriers' levels: 3) self-improvements (re-engineering or macro-change - involving supervisory systems); 4) self-innovation (re-design or mega-change, involving executive systems), or 5) breakthrough ('invention', giga-change or 'consciousness') see Figures 16 - Study of Qualitative Infrastructural Change Type below.

4. Populations prove that the species' genetic uniformity is maintained - conservation principle. But genetic programming 'errors' and information is lost at a constant rate. Changes in the 3DMM Supervisory systems (e.g., conversion processes) must also be considered. Multiple perfect supervisory conversion processing qualitative changes (re-engineering, re-design, invention) exist among the closes related species (e.g., snakes and lizards). Multiple qualitative infrastructural supervisory and executive-level changes must be pre-programmed in the species such what we see in the caterpillar metamorphosing into a butterfly. It is not enough to draw on physical similarities - an artist's approach at best (e.g., homology). Multiple trillions and zillions of qualitative changes must be accounted for and tracked empirically if 'evolutionary' macro-change is to be proved. Another view of this complexity is to consider that such qualitative infrastructural change would have to change at rates that are significantly superior to the speed of light - internally and environmentally in order to fit within the existing materialistic uniformitarian/evolutionary timeline. 

5. The Creation Science Model provides much better interpretation and predictions in areas of paleontology and geology. These reflect recent results and effects of initial global mega-catastrophic hydro-tectonic events that caused rapid upheavals, flow-currents (up to 80mph), rapid sedimentation and fossilization of organic structures. The apparent 'ages' (e.g., geologic column;) *14 do not record the history of events but mark event sequences/layers that had formed during recent global-catastrophic hydro-tectonic events and their post-adjustment period *15.

These five 'Creation Synthesis' basic poins suggest that:

• Genetics information, software, and infrastructural levels need to be addressed empirically. With greatly refined laboratory tools greater precision can be achieved. It is here that true science is in the works. How does information software work at sub-chromosomal levels; what are its engineering codes? What are the infrastructures (mother boards, architectures)? This is where true science lays.
• The creation science model doesn't require a chance-based (statistical progressive) relative progression, but will analyses infrastructural and 'change' levels that are built into life structures - these are necessary areas for scientific study. Mistakes, errors, mutations occur but are her identified for what they are - anomalies in complex systems. A study in this area will help identify how programming change affects all cellular management systems and how self-maintenance, repair, self-correcting processes work.
• Some adaptations lead to extreme change within a species (e.g., domesticated pigs escaping into the wild very quickly change at their cellular and morphological levels). Such a change never leads to initially non-programmed infrastructural (species) re-engineered and re-designed change. To what degree is the genetic information capable to change?

The Creation Science Model is designed to process all existing observable, measurable data that the Evolutionary Science Model does. Yet, instead of interpreting and making predictions of this data in terms of a billions-of-years geologic column and through the perception of a simple-to-complex and matter-to-man statistical progression, the Creation scientist interprets and makes predictions of this data in terms of recent emergence of life, global hydro-tectonic catastrophic events that are measured in terms of only recent thousands of years (6000 - 10000 years).

The original scientific method is designed to convert uncertainty to conditional certainty. This decision-making and problem-solving (DMPS) process can be used to identify the key difference between the evolution and creation scientific models. The key difference appears in: a) the range of alternatives (options) that scientists of both models consider; b) role and application of filters (criteria, priorities, weighing) and c) theoretical closed or open systems.

In other words, the evolution model focuses on: materialistic/naturalistic and reductionist options, filtered through the closed system of the materialistic uniformitarian priorities. Whereas the Creation model  describes a greater variety of options, matter, alternatives, geometric natural law, and search for knowledgebased accuracy. Also provides filters that are derived from the legal historical documented record as represented in the original Christian Bible and its corroborating verifiable evidence.

What does this legal historical document represent? Upon closer analysis it provides a unique strategy, techniques and foundations. the legal aspect is expressed in geometric natural law and the context of a covenantal format between the Eternal Lord God and the righteous that form the covenant bound. It's not just literature or philosophy. The terms, conditions, precedents, lives of men (most of whom were parties to the covenant), patriarchs, prophets and kings whose genealogy provides a history that can be reconstituted scientifically. This reconstitutable history begins with a geometrically based creation of all reality (see Figure 24 - Comparison: Geometric natural Law - Derived and Revealed and Figure 26 - Genesis is 'Creation Seven Day's Infrastructures: Geometric Solids). It contains timelines and supervisory infrastructures that reflect geometric natural law. it contains three recorded initial universal singularities, and many other feature that will be examined later.

The Book of Genesis provides a record of three of the six singularities:

Singularity 1 - Divine creation - where the Creator is clearly identified and personally writes the Creation events (Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:3) - the description containing unique features depicting geometric natural law *16, geometric solids and energy densities (see Table 26 - Genesis is 'Creation Seven Day's Infrastructures - Geometric Solids).

Singularity 2 - Soon after perfection had been established (energy-density at the highest infrastructural qualitative conic level - i.e., Singularity 1), the man Adam records *17 that within four days after being created and eleven days after the first day of creation *18, Adam,  who had been granted the legal Chief Executive Officer (CEO) decision-making responsibilities over all of Creation by the prime Contractor/ Creator, Adam became enmeshed in decision-making issues that brought about imperfection. This imperfection affected all that was under the CEO's responsibilities - resulting in the drop of the original energy-density level to a lower infrastructural level thus deforming all space-time-matter parameters. This left all Creation to 'starve' for energy *19. This drop 'shackled' all life forms with the task of maintaining conservative processes (whether through pre-programming at the sub-chromosomal information/nanobot levels, through instinct, skills, 'knowledge' development, science & technology), in order to postpone 'death' to the furthest point in the future.

Singularity 3 - About 1656 years after the events of Singularity 2 *20, there occurred on the earth, an initial super-mega global hydro-tectonic catastrophic event of relatively short duration (e.g., 12.2 months). This event was followed by several lesser self-adjustment mega catastrophic events of longer duration. Here lesser mega-hydro, mega-tectonic, mega-weather, thermal, ice age event (500+ years), also included air pressure halved, diminished electromagnetic gauss strengths and the rise of sea levels within 1000 years after the Ice Age. This left a secondary record and evidence upon the surface of the Earth. These secondary events are preserved and studied by geology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy and demographics among others.

Needless to say, that those who postulate and extrapolate their views from the materialist uniformitarian /evolutionary view will never be able to 'guess' the existence, effect and interpretation of the three singularities. They will assume that current processes, rates and events are the eternal scientific standard. Without realizing it, Evolutionists and/or Uniformitarians create axioms and theorems that are established with an exclusively impoverished economy of space-time-energy that was put into effect at the time of the second singularity.

The basic creation methodological formula is summarized as:

Creation Scientific Model - Historical/Millennial Christian and partially 'Young Earth Creation.'

During the late 1970's and 1980's the Neo-Evolutionists and Creationists held numerous high and mid-level public debates on university campuses across the USA and other countries. Eventually, the evolutionist school discouraged these debates because of their poor performance during their presentations. Among many reasons, the reason why Creation Scientists had been successful in these debates was because it was discovered that there where many honest and dedicated scientists who, while working under the evolutionary umbrella, had been conducting objective scientific research and had been publishing thousands of articles and books that described empirical data that led to potentially various interpretations and conclusions other that those promoted by the evolutionary school. Many of these scientists simply went where scientific data led them. The Institute of Creation Research (www.icr.org</a>) published a book/CD entitled 'That Their Words May Be Used Against Them.' This document included at least 3000 of such articles, covering all disciplines. During these public Evolution-Creation debates, many of these objective articles had been presented by the Creation debaters. After a decade of such debates, this spurred much change in strategies, tactical self-repositioning among the evolutionsts. Evolutionists finally discouraged and cancelled high-level debates with the Creation scientists.

        C + T + I + V

     ------------------- = A + K + S + P

          L + E + R

Legend:

C = 3 historical singularities: special creation, universal infrastructural energy-density drop, global hydro-tectonic catastrophe

T= Time - affected by 3 singularities (C) + recorded legal documents (E), recent history

I= 5 infrastructural change level design in living organisms

V= Environmental stress

L= Geometric Natural Law - reflected in millennial Christianity

E= Authoritative legal historical documentation

R= Geologic and Paleontological evidence A= Adaptation to environment (2 infrastructural change capabilities to adapt to the environment)

K= Knowledge-base (conditional certainty)

S= Standards, codes (conditional certainty)

P= Verifiable lawful scientific process to resolve 'uncertainty'

 However, during mid-1980's with huge investments into the scientific laboratories at the universities and research laboratories, there clearly began to emerge some paradoxical evidence in all areas. For example, new high-tech optics, - microscopy, brought discoveries not only in areas of DNA and RNA but even further - at sub-chromosome levels where information and nano-robotic (nanobot) high-tech software and engineering were clearly evident. It became clear that at the living cellular level - cells were not bio-chemical and only DNA/RNA functionalities, but that human, animal and plant cells, at the nano-technology level there existed a world with complete and most sophisticated software programming, engineering codes and standards - all functioning on a scale equivalent to the size of a 'New York City' environment at sub-microscopic levels. This led many scientists to seek better scientific explanations and scientific models than those promoted by traditional neo-evolution models.

With this introduction of super-high-tech labs during the 1980;s and 1990's, many Neo-Evolutionist scientists adapted what they could under the existing Neo-Evolutionist Scientific Model. Other scientists began to seek alternate explanations and models for the existing mechanical, organic and processive models that prescribed explanations rather than designed new explanations for the new scientific discoveries. In view of this mind-boggling evidence, some of the original Neo-Evolutionists began to propose extra-terrestrial (Alien) involvement and participations into evolutionary biology processes; while those who wanted to avoid falling into this short-cut interpretative trap, explored alternate explanations - finally formulating the Intelligent Design model. It was becoming evident to them that the standard Neo-Evolutionary Mechanical and Organic Mental Models: a) divert research into dead ends; b) simply are not adequate to address the mounting empirical evidence, or c) to move research in the right direction. Information engineering and theory opened up new avenues for explaining the workings at the DNA, software-type and nano-robot engineering operations at sub-chromosome levels.

The Creation Scientific Model accepted and 'predicted' (backwards and forward) such sophistication and complexities at life's sub-chromosome levels, in comparison to what has been presented by the Neo-Evolution / materialistic uniformitarianist /evolutionary fantastic scope - for example - its application of 'statistical progression' (i.e., chance) is identical to what the Internationalist Bankers call 'derivatives'.

The Creation Science Model diverges from the Intelligent Design Science Model on issues of : a) 'uniformitarianism' (see my blog on 'Uniformitarian - Definition' on http://grebens.org), and b) with Intelligent Design Science Model's view of a necessary 'theoretical' Intelligent Designer. Instead, the Creation Science Model recognizes a legally identified 'Lord God', who documents (Genesis 1:1-2:3) a geometric natural law-based document of Creation where all temporal reality is set within Geometric Natural Law, 3DMM, and DMPS and which reflects geometric solids,(see Figure 21 - see below); which also  form the basis for the establishment of the covenant agreements between Himself and Adam (CEO) to Abraham and beyond; and track a Kingdom of God program with a Salvation plan from the 2nd Singularity, towards the end of Time.

Figure 21 - Five Geometric Solids within the Eternal Sphere (Circle)

These geometric solids as infrastructural platforms are evident in the text of Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 - see Figures 24 and 26 in my books.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN VIEW

Imitating the Neo Evolutionary 'Modern Synthesis,' what would be an equivalent 'Intelligent Design's' hypothetical 'Modern Synthesis?': 

1. I.D. phenomena can best be substantiated and explained by the concept of 'irreducible complexity.' The information theory opened up a myriad of avenues for explaining the workings of the 'software-type' and nano-engineering operations at sub-chromosome levels.
2. Living systems reveal monumental systems that demonstrate pre-programmed systems where all kinds of activities and functions occur: replication, transportation, coding, decoding, interpretation of passwords, codes and procedures, functions, maintenance, manufacturing, self-reproduction (manufacturing), correction and elimination of non-programmed 'mistakes'.
3. The selection process is overwhelmingly related to a pre-programmed feature that allows for adaptation but not beyond programmed features. Nature does not 'program' code through statistical progressive adaptability capabilities. Naturalistic auto re-engineering, re-design and re-invention information systems are inconceivable. To implt naturalistic super-advanced development via statistical progression (chance), while overcoming accumulating waste, to cross qualitative infrastructures, produce original and systematic workable codes, standards, processes, and tools is beyond the threshold of probability and possibility. This is what Neo-Evolutionists must account for in order to justify their claim to be scientific.
4. Shifting pre-programs of information and engineering systems towards infrastructural re-engineering or re-design would naturally be identified as errors in the system. If these 'errors' were to be 'corrected' it would require to be done through 'outside' corrective programs - that need to be identified.

These four basic points suggest that:

• Evolutionary biology has been ignoring for far too long the information side of science. Similarly, reductionism, which is not equivalent to the scientific method, has a built-in barrier - materialistic notions of what constitutes 'certainty' (materialistic uniformitarianism). Yet, clearly, advanced biological research goes beyond 'materialistic certainty' - to information technology  and nano-enginering for which an evolutionary reconstructed history - that would proceed from simple-to-complex through statistical progression based upon uniformitarian assumption - cannot apply.
• The group of scientists who formed the Intelligent Design (I.D.) group emerged precisely because it recognized the fundamental limitations in the Neo-Evolutionary -basic formula. New super high-technology brought to light infinitely intricate complexities, processes, information software networks, nano-level intricate robotic engineering activity that overwhelmed statistical progression (chance). This was identified by the Creation scientists in the 1960s.
• The I.D. scientists recognized that there were integral sub-molecular engineering structures that could not be reduced without losing functionality. This concept is known as 'irreducible complexity.' Statistical progression cannot help explain this existence through the standard materialistic uniformitarian model.
• the I.D. scientists attribute the origin of fifth level infrastructural management structures to the involvement of a theoretical Intelligent Designer. This approach was proposed to avoid what was becoming a common occurrence among Neo-Evolutionists - they began to attribute non-evolutionary causes to 'hopeful monsters,' 'punctualities' and 'extraterrestrial Alien influences, participation and intrusions. An Intelligent Designer approach allows scientific investigation and research by circumventing this fettered uniformitarian methodology.

Contrary to popular, professional and US Courts' beliefs, the Intelligent Design scientists did not introduce a new religion. Religion is usually associated with rituals for member initiation, worship, the identification and qualification of members to religious orders, produce holy documentation, prayer calls, hymns, claim to be under divine inspiration, establish real-estate (buildings) for worship, or identify and qualify candidates for paradise or any other post-mortem residence. The I.D. group of scientists simply wishes to avoid dealing with scientific irrelevancies that ae imposed on the scientific method and its process.

The basic Intelligent Design formula can be summarized as:

Intelligent Design Scientific Model:

        C + (T - I) + M + I + N

      -----------------------------------= A + K + S + P

                  (L)

Legend:

C= One singularity: special creation - Intelligent Designer

T= Current and laboratory time E = Evolutionary time to prove statistical progression

I= Nano-level information software

M= Matter

N= Nano-level robotics engineering

(L) = Uniformitarianism *21

A= Irreducible complexity with unfettered scientific methodology

K= Knowledgebase (conditional certainty0

S= Standards, codes (conditional certainty)

P= Verifiable lawful scientific process to resolve uncertainty

The 'Intelligent Design' scientists re-introduce and propose a teleological approach. This approach helps explain the totally unexpected and unpredictable scientific evidence at the DNA, RNA, sub-chromosome levels. The I.D. group formulates a theoretical, eclectic, and all inclusive notion of an Intelligent Designer. As mentioned above, it helps avoid falling into the usual trap that many neo-evolutionists have fallen into - where in the absence of predicted data many of these scientists improvise and intorduce notions of 'hopeful monsters', 'punctuated equilibrium and hypothesize about 'extraterrestrial Alien' participation or intrusions into the evolutionary process.

Intelligent Designers theorize, inevitably about a pantheistic entity that can account for the super-high information-rich technology at the DNA/RNA levels *22. It is not an attempt to introduce elements of organized religion, e.g., the Christian Biblical God, who has a name, purpose, historical mission, social and inheritance levels that require priesthood for interpreting revealed communication. The Intelligent Designer is an impersonal, philosophical, non-theological entity and is not described within a creative time frame. I.D. scientists have their own personal views on the identity and activity of this Designer. The main idea that I.D. scientists wish to relate to the audience is that there are no amount of billions, trillions, or zillions of years that would help account for a statistical explanation for the complexity observed and recorded at sub-chromosomal information levels.

Creation scientists [i.e., Historical Christianity; 'Young earth Creation' (YEC)] may recognize some features of a creative intelligent designer, but also recognize the pantheistic framework of this scientific theory (see my blog on 'Religion Everywhere' http://WhichOnesAreScientific.com) and books). The Christian scientific framework contains an infinite Creator that is revealed through: (a) legal historical documented evidence; (b) geometric natural law; and (c) physical evidence within Creation itself that can be observed, documented, tested, and verified through the original definition of the scientific method. The I.D. concludes an 'a posteriori' (after the fact - examination of scientific evidence); while both the Creation scientists and Evolution scientists recognize an 'a priority' (before the fact - examination of scientific evidence).

HYBRID UNIFORMITARIAN VIEW

This study identifies a group of theories (see list below) as being 'Hybrid uniformitarian' because their proponents have, for over 150 years, tried to accommodate the long-ages (i.e., materialistic uniformitarian / evolutionary) view with the traditional millennial interpretation of the Biblical recent 7-day Creation schedule. This attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable is founded on the belief that 'materialistic uniformitarianism / Theory of Evolution' is fundamentally 'scientific,' while the traditional Biblical Genesis account, after many centuries of a tug of war with the various non-Christian philosophies, has been relegated to the outer fringes of 'pseudo-science.'

Having been challenged to explain and 'pass the test' on whether the Biblical Genesis creation timeline  is 'scientific' in terms of the new 'materialistic uniformitarian 'scientific ('?')' terminology and concepts, the Christian scientific community addressed the challenge by providing three approaches: (1) the Creation-Catastrophist (effects of the flood) approach; (2) Teleological view, and (3) blend of the 'materialistic uniformitarian' view with some generalized Genesis Creation adaptations and interpretations. The three approaches still exist today: 1) 'Young Earth Creation'; 2) 'Intelligent Design'; and 3) a number of groups that can be identified as Hybrids.

The groups with Hybrid Uniformitarian views include the following:

1. Theistic Evolution - God used evolution to create the universe 
2. Progressive Evolution; Old Earth Creation - Creation days were actually long uniformitarian ages but the timeline was punctuated by divine interventions at critical points to introduce qualitative new designs – that would correspond to gaps in the fossil record and absence of transitional forms
3. Day-age - Biblical days correspond to long ages
4. Gap Theory - Billions of years existed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
5. Framework interpretations - Known as a literary framework, where the six Genesis creation days were not literal, not scientific, it’s just a religious doctrine of Creation. 
6. Creation by Evolution – mutations & natural selection through simple to complex

A summary of the hybrid uniformitarian synthetic constraints and artificial means follow below:

 

(1) Reconcile irreconcilable notions of uniformitarian and creation origins. Scientists of the hybrid models have to contend with a timeline difference between that suggested by the uniformitarian/ evolutionary and that by of the Biblical Creation origins models. The contrast between the two 'creative events' is totally contrastive and irreconcilable. The Biblical Genesis Creation Model uses totally different infrastructural sequences that can only be understood within the parameters of geometric natural law and the geometric solids (see Figures 24 and 26 in my book; but not those suggested by proponents of the materialistic uniformitarian/ theory of evolution*23. Most of the Hybrid Uniformitarians must either bend Uniformitarian and/or Biblical historical descriptive precepts. 

 

(2) It should further be remembered that neither theory - can be scientifically tested in the lab. The Biblical legal historical account, identifies  three singularities - the second of which documents that matter, energy, time, physical laws and life-forms have been subject to a drop in energy flux density one cycle on the universal cone (see Figure 22 - Qualitative Infrastructures and Energy Flux Densities).

 

Figure 22 - Qualitative Infrastructures and Energy Flux Densities

This means that the economy of conditions that existed before the second singularity were significantly different from those that came after, which now 'starve' for energy and are subject to 'death'. The materialistic uniformitarain / evolutionary account doesn't even consider such a probability and assumes that the 'deteriorating' condition of existing matter, energy, life (i.e., 'death') had been eternal, or at least from the 'Big Bang' in MUT (Materialistic Uniformitarian Time).

 

The contrast among the Materialistic Uniformitarian / Evolution, Hybrid and even most of the Intelligent Design adherents and the Genesis Creation Special Creation view is: 

 

Figure 3: Comparison: Orgins Interpretation: Materialistic Uniformitarianism  (MU) vs. Creation (CS) *24

 

1. MU - Matter existed in the beginning

    CS - Matter created by God in the beginning [or geometric 'firmness'  - matter 'waters' in verse Genesis 1:2]

2. MU - Sun and stars before the Earth

    CS - Earth before the Sun and stars

3. MU - Land before the oceans

    CS - Oceans before the land

4. MU - Sun, Earth's first light

    CS - Light before the Earth

5. MU - Atmosphere above the water layer

    CS - Atmosphere between two water layers

5. MU - Marine organisms, first forms of life

    CS - Land plants, first life forms created

6. MU - Fish before fruit trees

    CS - Fruit trees before fish

7. MU - Insects before fish

    CS - Fish before insects

8. MU - Sun before land plants

    CS - Land vegetation before Sun

9. MU - Land mammals before marine mammals

    CS - Marine mammals before land mammals

10. MU - Reptiles before birds

      CS - Birds before land reptiles

11. MU - Death, necessary antecedent of man

      CS - Man, the cause of death

 

 

 

 

(3) The Hybrids needlessly distort or dilute the Materialistic Uniformitarian and Special Creation models by reinterpreting and proposing some external dynamic physical processes that cannot be substantiated on Uniformitarian nor Special Creation criteria. Hybrid notions cannot explain the specific External Interventions through reasonable and evidential proofs. They do not substantiate the long versus recent ages of the Earth or the universe.

 

(4) Resort to leaps of faith - i.e., believe in certain conditions that cannot be deduced from either of the competing standard models or systematic treatment of evidence (e.g., Local vs. Global Flood; gaps in the fossil record - are there other explanations?). It's important to note that although the notion of leaps of faith is usually associated with the practice of faith/religious practice, leaps of faith is evident among those who propose materialistic uniformitarian explanations. For example, in the absence of concrete scientific evidence, Neo-Evolutionists refer to their exclusive consensus of scientific opinion. Ernst Mayr proposes in his 'The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" *25 that scientists should extrapolate micro- to macro-evolution, with historical contingency, which are to be defined as explanations for different levels, since gradualism does not mean constant rate of change. Here explanation and extrapolations must substitute empirical evidence for something that may/does not exist.

 

(5) Hybrids complicate or do not resolve definitional and evidential parameters

 

(6) Hybrids suggest that provide the dialectical 'synthesis' (i.g., to Creation view = Thesis, Neo-Evolutionists = Anti-thesis, and Hybrids = Synthesis), which instead of reconciling, actually places all parties at odds with each other (materialist uniformitarianists and Special Creation ('Young Earth Creation')

 

(7) Redefine and reinterpret: a) the original 'theological' foundations that had been established for millennia (Christianity),b) in many cases inadvertently and inevitably offer pantheism as a solution *26 by removing the Genesis three singularities and offering a 'materialistic uniformitarian' constant and criteria instead; and c) re-define and reinterpret the original uniformitarian view that has been established on purely materialistic and reductionist principles, which do not allow for metaphysical participation or speculation.

Hybrid Scientific Model (Theistic Evolution; Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation):

       C  +  M  +  T  +  V

     -------------------------- = A  +  I  +  K  +  S  +  P

           L  +  E  + R

Legend:

C= Chance (e.g., genetic mutation, flow, mechanisms) 

M= Matter

T= Time (current time)

V= Environmental stress

E= Uniformitarianism

L= Relativism

R= Reductionism

A= Simple (primitive) to complex, natural selection, across 5 infrastructural change levels; micro-/macro-evolution

I = Punctuated Supernatural intervention

K=Knowledgebase (materialism, uniformitarianism, reductionism, relativism; and allegorical literary interpretation of any scripture)

S= Standards

P= Scientific Process (evolutionary realism, dialectical materialism)

The Hybrid formula is practically identical to the Materialistic Uniformitarian / Evolutionary formula.

It is important to note that most of today's Christian Churches (Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church) and most Protestant Denominations accept this irreconcilable politically safe Hybrid Model. No doubt, the Hybrid view is being prepared as a foundation for establishing the post-WW3 Pantheon of Modernist World religions/Ideologies (see my blog entitled: FINANCIER’S TOTAL WORLD COLLECTIVIST DICTATORIAL POWER – A TIMELINE FORMULA' on http://grebens.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *1 Denton, Michael, ‘Evolution: Theory in Crisis,’ Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland, 1986, page 79. See also: Mayr, E and W.B. Provine, eds. ‘The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology,’ Harvard University Press, 1998, pp 54ff. Mayr & Provine provide an early history of genetic theory: on the one hand Evolutionists capitalized on Mendel’s hereditary principles to theorize their evolutionary process, but Galton, de Vries, Johannsen, Bateson saw that selection of small fluctuating differences could not move a population beyond original limits of variability. This contrast of views still exists today in the Evolution vs. Creation and Intelligent Design.

*2 James Hutton’s, ‘Theory of the Earth’ (1785, and two volumes, 1795) is perhaps the first work where interpretations of ‘older’ geological formations. In 1811 Georges Cuvier and Alexandre Brogniart developed the ‘stratgraphic succession’ theory to explain Earth’s layers. Lyell, Charles, ‘Principles of Geology Being an attempt to explain the former Change of the Earth’s Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation,’ (1830) followed suit and formulated the ‘(materialistic) uniformitarian’ concept for geology (Note: see my blog on ‘Uniformitarian – Definition’ http://grebens.org ). Soon however this materialistic uniformitarianism was applied to every other branch of science, history, language development, and even social and political science. The materialistic uniformitarian doctrine suggests that one can only start with conditions, physical laws and rates of change that exist today. Then use these to reconstruct past events. Since current rates of change are slow, and organic change is to be seen in terms of small incremental chance mutations, origins of current reality must include long periods of history in order to accommodate chance (relative statistical progressive methods) to work itself out to the existing conditions.

*3 Mayr, E and W.B. Provine, eds. ‘The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology,’ Harvard University Press, 1998.

*4 Denton, Michael, ‘Evolution: Theory in Crisis,’ p. 328ff

*5 Mayr, E and W.B. Provine, eds. ‘The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology,’ First Harward University Press, paperback edition, 1998.

*6 Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, ‘Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism.’ In T.J.M. Schopf, ed.,Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper, 1972; Reprinted in Eldredge ‘Time Frames. Princeton: Princeton University press, 1985.

*7 Dobzhansky, T., and O. Pavlovsky. ‘An experimental study of interaction between genetic drift and natural selection, ‘Evolution’ 11:311-319, 1957.

*8 Denton, Michael, ‘Evolution: Theory in Crisis,’ Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc. Bethesda, Maryland, 1986, page 79

*9 Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

*10 Mayr, E., ‘Animal Species and Evolution.’ Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1963.  Mayr includes geneticist Goldschmidt, paleontologist Schindewolf, and zoologists Jeannel, Cuenot, and Cannon, among those who also maintained that neither evolution within species nor geographic speciation could explain the phenomena for ‘macroevolution,’ page 351, in the 1970 edition.

*11 Halstead, B. ‘Halstead’s Defense Against Irrelevancy’, ‘Nature,’ 292: 403-04, see p. 403, 1981.

*12 Example: Dwain Gish, ‘The Fossils Still Say No!’ Both Dr. Dwain Gish and Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute of Creation Research (www.icr.org</span>) have led the high profiled and highly successful Evolution-Creation debates during the late 1970’s and 1980’s.

*13 RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), see www.ICR.org</span>, ‘Thousands…Not Billions’ and others. Also John Baumgardner – at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory from 1984, was expert in the design of computer models for planetary catastrophes, Earth’s 3D computer simulation of plate tectonics movement (funded by NASA).

*14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column

*15 http://www.icr.org/article/293/

*16 See Part 2 for details

*17 Genesis 3, specifically verse 17 'cursed' [is] the ground'

*18 Various authorities have presented ways of interpreting Biblical chronology. To minimize potential sectarian, denominational, post/modernist (uniformitarian) influences, this book will present the most straight forward approach - the Christian Bible reflects a clear legal historical structure based on geometric natural law. This approach may in some cases resemble or parallel some 'inerrancy' interpretations - a substitute for the removal of geometric natural law. This approach will diverge from mainstream interpretations in areas where management (3DMM), historical family lineages are traced, Christian historical and other issues are brought forth (DMPS) change management, etc.) and issues of geometric natural law, geometric solids identified. With regard to textual examples - the difference between the first week (seven days) of creation (Gen 1:1 to 2:4) and the second week of creation (beginning with the formation of Eden, creation of Adam and to his expulsion from the Garden of Eden), clearly the second week parallel event that occur during the Passover week (passion week) - also second week in the month of Abib. It is during this Passover week that Jesus Christ fulfilled 'repaired' and 'paid' for all errors committed in Eden - day by day and hour by hour.

*19 There's an interesting passage about the restoration of all of Creation from the effects of the second singularity in Romans 6:18-22

*20 This timeframe is calculated based on the historical chronology of Biblical Patriarchs.

*21 Stephen C. Meyer, in ‘Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design,’ (HarperCollins e-books, June 2009) mentions that he considers himself to be an uniformitarian. He connects this to ‘historical sciences’ (philosophy of science) – defined as: ‘the present is the key to the past.’ However the definition here is so broad that Creation science may very well fit within it.’ Religious Philosophy has used the term ‘uniformitarianism’ (the universe has existed unchanged for an immeasurable amount of time and will continue to exist forever), before Charles Lyell adapted it within a materialistic content. This book will use the term ‘uniformitarian-ism’ with its materialistic meaning, to refer to the foundation of the evolution theory.

*22 Stephen c. Meyer, ‘Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design,’ HarperCollins e-books, June 2009.

*23 Officially, I.D. scientists do not address issues of origins. I.D. organizations have resources on the harmony of the universe, Cambrian vs. Pre-Cambrian life explosion

*24 From: John Morris, ‘The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth – Past, Present, and

Future,’ Master Books, AR, 2007, p. 31 [the right and left column reversed]

*25 E.Mayr. and W. B. Provine, eds., The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998); and E. Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution & Inheritance (Cambridge: Harvard University Press) 567.

*26 The numerous hypothetical 'loose ends' allow for convenient New Age theories, and may simply become echoes and reflections of philosophies such as that of Teilard de Chardin’s ‘‘Omega Point.’’ 

Comparison: 3DMM and Language/Literary levels (Figure 7)

by Dr. George Grebens

Update: 14 August, 2010

There are parallels/similarities between the 3-Dimensional Management Model (3DMM) and the three infrastructural levels with their 27 plan groups are evident at three basic language and literary levels. The simple linguistic gradation (see Figure 1 below) reflect three infrastructural management levels - see the 3DMM (Figure 2 - The 3DMM and Figure 3 - Language and Literary levels).

Figure 1 - Linguistic Gradations

The linguistic lanaguage elements include the study of sub-structures and their interaction to form a final complete and networked structure. Such linguistic elements (spoken, written) are also seen in other correponding communication areas such as: behavioral and signed.

1. Phonetics - (sound) physical properties of speech/sign generation and perception
2. Phonology - (study of sound) sounds/signs as discrete, abstract elements in the speaker's mind that distinguish meaning
3. Morphology - internal particles of words and their modification
4. Lexicology - the formation and meaning of words and idiomatic combinations
5. Grammar - words (parts of speech) properly arranged as phrases or sentences (noun, verb, adjective, adverbs, etc.) - following specific rules
6. Syntax - how words combine to form structured sentences with variations - based on the structure of subject-predicate-object, etc. cojmbined into sentence structure: simple, complex, compound complex and other combinations) with their corresponding changes in meaning.
7. Semantics - meaning of words (lexical) and fixed word combinations (phraseology) how these combine to form and to change meaning that accompany changes.
8. Stylistics - study of characteristics that form whol/complete texts, sound compositions, symbols and behavior, with emphasis on the proper use of synonyms. Such stylistic conposition helps define or transmit the meaning(s) of the whole. Complete works made by individuals or groups.
9. Pragmatics - analysis of language in terms of the situational context within which utterances are made, including the knowledge and beliefs of the speaker and the relation between speaker and listener.
10. Discourse analysis - analysis of language used in texts (spoken, written, or signed).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2 - The 3DMM

 I've researched, developed, tested and taught the 3-Dimensional-Management-Model (3DMM) for 30 years in various settings, disciplines and on practical tasks (e.g., management, engineering project development consultancy). In my books and websites on the resolution of the Evolution-Creation-Intelligent Design & Hybrids,' I've used the 3DMM to identify the management components of what constitutes science (accurate knowledgebase - conditional certainty) and the scientific method (DMPS) the process by which 'uncertainty' is converted to conditional certainty. Here in Linguistics, the 3DMM as a management tool, has also provided valuable insights into how communication, language and literature can be understood and defined.

The 3DMM contains management plans that are arranged in a 3 X 3 X 3 network:

- 3 insfractural levels or qualitative structures - (a) Management Design (in linguistincs this would include: Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology, Lexicology, Grammar); (b) Management Operations (in linguistincs: Syntax and Semantics); (c) Management Style (in linguistics: Stylistics, Pragmatix and Discourse Analsysis)

- 3 rows guidance levels - Executive, Supervisory and Functional

- 3 orientation levels - Directional, Processive and Infobase 

So every plan has a three-based address  and is defined by a network relationship: example - Leading (O4) is located on the Management Operational infrastructure,on the supervisory role, and is within the Directive vertical orientation. 

The 3DMM is a copyrighted Figure 5 in my books, 'Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design & Hybrids' - page 60, also see my websites: http://grebens.com; http://grebens.org; and http://WhichOnesAreScientific.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 3 - Language and Literary levels

The parallels and similarities between the 3DMM and communication-language-literature are summarized below: 

1. STYLE MANAGEMENT: S1-S9 *1 and Literary Stylistics Parallels/Similarities

Refinement of textual content & context through the use of effective semantic, synonymic, symbolic, typological application so as to achieve effective, representative, reflective, uniform communication, and a perception of and possible habit change (ethics, image, and culture).

Six stylistic levels of communications have been considered over time, from the lowest - (a) ‘vulgar’ with a maximum 500 word vocabulary and a longevity of 5 years, to the levels with increased vocabulary and longevity: (b) common level, (c) technical, (d) literary, (e) philosophical and the (f) poetic level with its 100,000 word vocabulary and 250 year longevity.

Stylistics also involves a method for establishing author’s writing skills, methods, attitude and themes. As a manager of his craft, the author or artist will identify qualitative contribution, dignity, integrity, originality (self-determination) and productive expression of freedom or dependency.

Style is not focused so much on the proper language usage (habit, dependence, culture) but uses all available communicative means (culture, attitude, methods, images, ethics) to ensure that the entire work (short story, article, novel, music, artwork) is in total harmony – having each part contributing and networking to enhance the whole. The author will respect dignity, integrity and self-determination of all or some of the audience.

2. OPERATION MANAGEMENT: O1-O9 - Literary Syntax: Parallels/Similarities

Each communication reflects specific objectives. Refinement of communication is planned, organized and directed by the use of expression structural alternatives: simple, complex, compound or any of these combinations that lead to clear objectives - desired results.

Writers or speakers lead their audience through the control of techniques, qualities that help implement objectives. Writers, speakers, and artists examine interconnections between ideas, concepts, coherence and relevancy expressed in each sentence and sub-/structures to bring out value (optimization). Focus on word and image economy lead towards precise, durable, clear ideas and action, which in turn lead to the attainment of proper audience desired effect and results (quality assurance and control).

3. DESIGN MANAGEMENT: D1-D9 – Literary Grammar: Parallels/Similarities

Literature is composed of language elements (parts of speech): verbs, nouns, prepositions, etc. When arranged on a page, they demonstrate an intentional or un-intentional: purpose (laws, identity, scope); objectives (standards, authority), strategy (forecasted utilization), in accordance with specific cultural conventions (guidelines), arrangements, order (procedures) and rules. These are edited (R&D), for coherence and clarity (economics). Communication, meaning and results (productivity) - with an audience in mind is achieved.

*1 These reference the plan addresses on the 3DMM (see for example my blog on 'Definitions: Introduction' at http://grebens.org

In addition to my two existing websites: http://WhichOnesAreScientific.com; and http://grebens.com, that are related to my two books; you may be interested to visit my third website that started in August 2010 -  http://grebens.org

 

 

Hypothesis and Theory – Similarities

Dr. George Grebens

Update: 11 July 2010

'Evolution, Creation, Intelligent Design and Hybrids: Which are Scientific,' American University & Colleges Press, (2010), Page 115-116

The definition and application of the terms ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ seem to vary with the user and organization that uses them. Members of various disciplines have designed their own private definitions and brought about positive results in their disciplines. Others have purposefully employed inconsistent methods knowing that such ambiguity would helped them promote controversial views, or provide them with outlets from difficult or embarrassing situations.

Many scientists clearly distinguish ‘theory’ from ‘fact’, while others insist that their ‘theory’ has indeed become near ‘fact’. Records indicate that the terms ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are almost interchangeable. Although there are significant similarities between the two it is necessary to anchor the specifics so that both terms may become concrete and reliable tools in scientific investigation.

The hypothesis is a step within the decision-making and problem-solving (DMPS), which is related to the process that identifies alternatives (#4). The theory is also a step within the DMPS that is related with the post implementation phase - application (#6) – i.e., quality guarantee or conditional certainty (#7). Both, however, still remain within ‘uncertainty’ and must be processed through the DMPS steps. Both hypothesis and the theory must be measured and assessed in terms of the DMPS steps: 1) compared with what is considered to be ‘existing’ conditional certainty; 2) the psychological, 3) definition, 4) alternatives, 5) filtering, 6) testing and implementation; and 7) quality guarantee (see Figures 9 – 13 in the books).

Before defining the difference between the terms, it is necessary to recognize nine preliminary and fundamental similarities between the ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’. Both terms:

1. Deal with a condition that is uncertain
2. Uncertainty is a temporary condition that relies on the investigative processes that is to lead through stages to potential certainty
3. Imply the necessity to process the hypothesis and theory through multiple DMPS steps
4. Start with phenomenon and identify an objective
5. Reflect quantitative parameters
6. History and standards, as well as, the qualification of the observer; clear, quantitative evidence must help qualify, assess the status of the hypothesis or theory
7. Phenomenon (-a) can be tangible (such as a mechanical parts, components, assembly, unit, system, process, information, laws) or intangible (psychological, behavioral, random, seemingly ‘magical’, singular or results of super high-tech – that may be for us outside our every-day experience
8. Suggest a rational, logical and mental model
9. Can be tracked for decision-making and problem-solving (DMPS) progress (resolution of uncertainty towards certainty) :

•  Psychological bias – ideology, competence, tool use, performance historical, etc.
•  Descriptive, design, definitional stage that include objectives to be attained within a time frame.
•  Investigative - examination of workable and quantifiable alternatives
•  Evaluative - filtering in view of its application to ensure operational value: quality, standards, codes, falsifiable, validity and predictability
•  Operational – testing for repeatability, quality control, forecasted performance – in other words – certainty
•  Quality guarantee – post operational application. The results may: succeed in meeting conditional certainty criteria. Results may also fail or provide lateral solutions. This phase may also consider re-assessing whether the approach has been properly identified, or should be dropped from consideration.

Having identified these nine key points of similarity, the difference between the hypothesis and theory is primarily hinged upon or distinguished by the theory’s law-based requirement – identified in steps #6 and/or #7.

Hypothesis (Gk: hypotithenal – is to put under, to suppose.) is the process of specifying the phenomenon (-a) through quantitative alternatives’ analysis (#4), using the necessary analytical tools, whose results will be filtered (#5): weighed, prioritized, examined, through criteria for prediction, test, quality analysis and implementation. Hypotheses, reflect uncertainty, are tracked through their development phase - DMPS.

Theory (Gk: thea – a view + horan – to see) is a supervisory view or a model that simulates plausible sets of phenomena, processes and rules that reflect or are based on existing or potentially discoverable laws – steps #6 and 7. The theory, because it is still uncertain, will examine the short and long-term quantitative analyses, filtered results and applications within the framework of tested applications, checked for new referential accuracy and validity (#6 and #7). Theories, reflect uncertainty, and must be tracked and ‘certified’ through their secondary DMPS development phase.

Updated: 11 July, 2010

The debating proponents represent four key approaches:

1. Evolution. Proponents of evolution establish their position and science upon the principles of uniformitarianism. The Evolution Scientific Model uses these uniformitarian principles to interpret and predict scientific empirical data. 

2. Creation or 'Young Earth Creation.' Originally, historical Christendom reflected the historically Recent and Catastrophic views as these are legally documented in the Christian Bible. Here we see the Biblical historical timeline, events, genealogies and foundational geometric natural law. The 'events' include at least three singularities. In the 1960's Henry M. Morris provided the 'Creation Scientific Model' that provided a viable tool for interpreting and predicting scientific empirical data.

3. Intelligent Design I.D. or the teleologicalview. Having used modern scientific laboratory tools that became available from the 1980's, many neo-evolutionists began to find scientific evidence that could not be explained through neo-evolutionary (uniformitarian) organic and processive models. I.D. opened hypothetical and theoretical parameters to help them continue the originally defined scientific research.

4. Hybrid Uniformitarians, includes many of the early 'old ages creation' views: Theistic Evolution, Day-Age, Gap Theory that led to today's 'Progressive Creation,' 'Old Age Creation,' and 'Creation by Evolution.'

These views' key movers and shakers can be found on websites below and in my books 'Which Ones Are Scientific' and the more scholarly book entitled: 'Evolution-Creation-Intelligent Design and Hybrid Uniformiatian: Which Ones Are Scientific'. Many other supporting groups can be found via 'search engines':

- Evolution or Uniformitarians: There are many centers but here are two that fight for what they believe and set the norm

  http://books.nap.edu/openbook/php?chapselect=yo&page=01&record_id=11876

  http://www.TalkOrigins.org

- Creation - 'Young Earth Creation'

   http://www.icr.org

   http://creationanswers.net/

   http://creationwiki.org/  

Readers may be interested in the book by Oard, Mike, Flood by Design: Recedinhg Water Shapes the Earth's Surface,' Master Books, AR, 2008. ISBN-13:978-051-523-5. 

   - Intelligent Design

   http://www.Discovery.org

   http://www.IntelligentDesign.org

   New book (06.2009): Meyer, Stephen C., 'Signature in the Cell: DNA and Evidence for Intelligent Design,' (Harper Collins e-books, June 2009)

- Hybrid Uniformitarian

   http://www.reasons.org

- Creation by Evolution'

    http://biologos.org/