WHY I DON'T TRUST MODERN SCIENCE, PART ONE

This begins my series on why I no longer trust science. Admittedly, this post is an odd one, but I think the topic is one of great import, and one that shows quickly that modern science is confused about what is truth, and confused about how it defines life, intelligence, and processes. This post does not include any footnotes. I admit it is an almost entirely philosophical post. The rest of this series will be have documentation attached, so you can see for yourselves where I got the information I wrote about, and why I claim what I claim.

Let's start this simply. Here is my statement.

Natural Selection IS intelligent design.

Now, we all know that natural selection is the process by which scientists say evolution occurs. However, not all scientists agree on whether that process is intelligent or not. The majority of those disagreeing scientists will be creation scientists, but there are nonetheless some scientists in the secular fields who believe Natural Selection must be an intelligent process. Personally speaking, I don't really believe in evoluton for more reasons than I care to list in this post, and therefore natural selection does not exist for me. But for the sake of the series, I wanted to start with natural selection as I believe it comes to bear on why I say modern science is not trustworthy. Darwin's theory of evolution is related to many scientific fields today. I believe that because that theory is highly flawed, the foundation of modern science itself is also highly flawed.

NATURAL SELECTION.

Think about that name for a moment.

At the very least, I would have believed evolutionists would have given the process a different name by now. "Natural Selection", as defined by Meriam-Webster means "a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"

I don't need to look at that definiton for longer than a minute to realize that it smacks of intelligence. Let's look at the words that have been "selected" to portray the definition. There's "process", "success", "adjusted", "leads to perpetuation", and "best suited to that particular environment".

Let's start with the word "process". Any process involves steps, and any successful process involves the same steps, repeated over time to guarantee success. In my industry, it takes real planning to guarantee any kind of success, in essence, it takes intelligence. I suppose, though, that the type of work I do is not very similar to what scientists claim nature does, so maybe that correlation isn't a very good one.

Next, the word "adjusted" jumps out at me. Meriam-Webster defines the word meaning "to bring to a more satisfactory state". If we stopped at simply that definition, then Natural Selection is in real trouble if we want to continue to define it as being an unintelligent process. The idea of a more satisfactory state implies a sense of knowing what is not more satisfactory, in other words, of knowing the DIFFERENCE between satisfactory and unsatisfactory. However, Meriam-Webster also defines it as "to adapt or conform oneself", which, admittedly, is a much more fitting definition for "adjust" in the sense of Natural Selection.

Let's tie that definition in with "best suited to that particular environment". Our definiton of Natrural Selection, then, would be that life adjusts itself to be best suited for that particular environment. How does this process occur?

Does it occur by trial and error? Let's use a wild, outrageous example. Does a single cell that lives in a hostile environment of cell-wall eating acids try a thinner cell wall first? And if that doesn't work, does the next generation try the thicker cell wall, or maybe a cell wall that is impermeable to acids such as these? How does it happen? How does the living cell know which trait gives it the best chance for survival? Do the cells that perished somehow communicate to the still living cells which attempts didn't work?

If we stick with the definition of Natural Selection, then it is clear that there is nothing random or "trial and error" about the process scientists claim drives evolution. The very idea of selection is the ability to choose. The very idea of natural selection is that the species is able to select which traits give it the best hope for survival in the long run. Careful, we might just be accused of saying that evolution not only is unnatural, but that it can predict the future as well, in an entirely unintelligent manner.

When Darwin proposed that Natural selection was the vehicle by which evolution occured, he also proposed that evolution was entirely random, without any outside guiding influence other than the environment. I propose that if evolution exists (and I do not believe it does), that it MUST be guided by intelligence. Anything that can adjust according to what makes it best suited to live in a certain environment has the ability to DECIDE what is best suited, and what is not. Decisions are entirely intelligence based. A badly failed "trial and error" attempt at adjusting to the environment would mean the cesstion of life for that species. Can you imagine, now, that the process of trial and error occured not just for complex multi-celled creatures, but for the very simple first single- celled and self-replicating creatures as well?

Trial and error? For that is what it would have to be to suggest that "Natural Selection" is entirely unintelligent. That, or rename the process, because Natural Selection implies intelligence by its very name and nature. Anything that can "select" something, or make a choice is intelligent, regardless of what the selection criteria are. Something so critical and involved as survival takes much more than trial and error attempts to gain success over any length of time, and we must keep in mind that science claims life has been on this planet for almost four billion years. That many trial and error attempts should result in disaster, not the proliferation of the various species.

It's a simple scientific experiment; you can do it in your own kitchen. Set a large bowl on the countertop, and begin attempting to toss the cover (the only cover that fits) on the bowl through trial and error. How many attempts will it take to place the cover exactly where it belongs? Do you have time to make that many attempts? Or will something (your environment) demand your attention before the attempt that succeeds occurs? In the case of life, what demands attention is survival, and survival cannot be left up to amatuers who believe that trial and error is going to asure success over the long haul every time. There just isn't enough time, and the environment is constantly demanding attention for a different problem than the one "trial and error" is currently trying to solve. I propose that by the time life has evolved to solve even one problem, several hundred more problems have occured which make it impossible for that species to survive in its current state, because the environment is never going to wait for a process that requires as much time as evolution does.

Science says I am wrong. But if we take a simple look at nature, we see that what I propose occurs naturally almost constantly. Especially in the case of diseases and natural disasters, the various species are completely reliant upon their ability to adapt or flee, and if they cannot, they die. If multiples of environmental concerns attacks a species, that species' ability to mutate and change rapidly enough has never been witnessed by man. In fact, the only species capable of surviving MANY multiple environmental changes simultaneously IS man, and it is exactly due to man's intelligence, and his mastery over providing protection for himself. Animals do not have that sort of intelligence. It is ludicrous to believe that single living cells do.

Any survival of life on earth requires intelligence, because without intelligence, life simply cannot change rapidly enough to withstand the ever changing environment around it. Scientists claim that many generations are necessary for the process of natural selection to meet an environment that is changing. I propose that species often do not have more than a single generation in which to respond to environmental change. It should be simple, it should be logical. Instead, science claims it is illogical to believe in an intelligence that not only created life, but guides it even as we live now.

Think about it yourself. Can we understand that life without intelligence simply cannot change fast enough to survive its rapidly changing environment? We have witnessed numerous species' extinctions due to single environmental changes, and yet we propose that life can survive many multiples of environmental changes and disasters without intelligence?

Science claims to know why evolution occurs, and it calls the process Natural Selection. Furthermore, science claims that Natural Selection is unintelligent. I propose that if evolution occurs, science doesn't currently have a clue as to why or how it occurs. If they could just admit that, they might be trustworthy. But my high school science text (and some current ones) claimed that the giraffe grew a long neck to reach the more tender leaves at the tops of trees.

What, I ask, do leaves at the tops of trees have to do with survival? And how, I ask, can the neck of the giraffe not be considered an intelligent design if the leaves at the tops of trees have anything at all to do with survival?

Science has much explaning to do, and they could start with admitting that they are still clueless as to the origins of life as we know it, instead of pretending to know that a mindless random process determines life.