with No Comments

Intelligent design is so easy to observe in the wilderness.

All things have chosen their perfect places.  Nothing is out of order.

Each rosebush, every pine tree, sagebrush, blade of buffalo grass has followed its inborn intention to the place that gives it best opportunity to flourish — right soil, moisture, weather and nutrients.

Don’t dismiss this as being too simple. Nor wordy enough.

It’s just another perspective of saying that each plant, bird and bee is there due to the law of survival of the fittest.

How do we know they are the fittest? Because they’ve survived.

I’m not sure that reasoning though would hold up in a course of logic.


Bill Zermatt Seated in MountainsWhen you are out in the woods as often as I am, especially if alone, you can really get into the rhythm of nature.

One day we see buds on plants.  The next day we see they’ve blossomed. And the days following we’ll notice they are in various stages of advanced flowering.

Change happens! But on purpose, according the the design built into the plants.

Even eons-old Rio Grande Gorge shows us the intentional hesitation — in geologic time of course — of huge boulders and rocks poised ready to tumble. Their purpose is not as readily observed, for they only know how to respond to natural laws — gravity, inertia and such.

It doesn’t take a neuroscientist to intuit these purposeful chains of occurrences in nature.  They almost occur before our very eyes.

It makes the usual Intelligent Design vs Natural Selection debate seem childishly silly.

Like if you tilt your head one way you’ll look backwards, seeing changes by their causal-chain perspective — the thing that caused it, being caused by something before it, in turn being yet caused by something before that.

Tilt your head another way you’ll see built-in designs guiding the changes, pulling them teleologically toward their future destination, in the true cybernetic way that guides missals.

Think “cause” or “purpose.”

Webster – “Purpose: the reason for which something is done . . .”

I suppose one might say an individual rose accidentally exists to be pretty and smell good. Period.

That does seem to me a narrow view.  But that’s me.  I believe there is a higher order to life, such as we have in saving endangered species rather than breeding just one beautiful peacock.


The Seed Provides Intelligence to Guide a Plant’s Growth

If we are out there in the wilds often enough, we can’t help see that a rosebud is guided, purposely directed toward opening out into a red, red rose and not a tulip.

Likewise we see simple things like beautiful fall foliage leaves guided to their colorful manifestation by pre-determined patterns hidden deep within their dark green leaves of summer, achieving their colorful purpose when facing autumn frosts.

Isn’t this all just a fun head game, though?

I mean, isn’t it just how we choose to see nature’s puzzles — looking backward at causes or forward to purposes?

Don’t we have a choice of seeing things either pushed toward their destiny by an accidental combination of circumstances; or seeing them guided to fulfill their innate predetermined design?


Intelligence In Nature?

Wouldn’t it be blind not to see that all living things have, at inception, the intention to mature into their own kind?

Isn’t that much like the cybernetics of guided missals — they don’t just happen to hit their target. Their intention is built into them.

A chicken lays an egg that has the built-in intention to hatch into a chick with it’s innate intention to grow into a chicken to lay its eggs with the intention to hatch into more chicks.

I mean isn’t it basic biology, to know that each living creature, plant, or bug has the inborn pattern to intentionally reproduce its own kind.

And aren’t we concerned about protecting endangered species to reproduce their kind?

Taken all together — the purpose of all living species to reproduce their kind is a design that is somehow persistently there inside each member of each species.

And collectively it is there as a group, all members of a species to reproduce in gatherings of their own kind.

Spruce trees produce spruce forests in Colorado. Pinyon pines produce pinyon forests in New Mexico.



I’ve used simple terms to speak of the software built into a species for its survival.  In dictionary terms — it is generalization about the characteristics of groups of living things.

I’ve reduced this post to words we use in everyday conversation.

I know.

The words “Intelligent Design” cause people to choose sides, as if they were going to a ball game.

Each side’s idea of Intelligent Design is loaded with connotative ideas about a Divine Creator.”

One side clings to God.  The other wants to be the God that destroys God.

Okay, so here’s a question for both sides.

How did the design for purposeful reproductive behavior get imbedded within each individual of each species?

It’s a chicken or egg graduate course conundrum.

I mean how did the pattern get created out of the primal soup and then, how did it get the capability to be handed down from one generation after the other?

The creation of the pattern itself, never mind the capability to hand it down wholly in tact from generation to generation would be a humungous task, wouldn’t it?

It is too naive to say simply, “God did it.”

But it’s equally naive to say it was created “by a random, undirected process,” sort of a cosmic roll of the dice.

The business of creating this single aspect of biological creatures, plants, bugs, microbes, viruses — is mystifying.

For all things, especially these complex reproductive patterns, came from something, not nothing — evolution or not.


The Co-Founder of Evolution Theory Posed the Question

I observe my wife every spring go outside to dig, plant and nurture her tomatoes, beans, shallots and cucumber plants.

My wife is a gardner who prepares conditions that help the growth process of the plants.  She does not inject them with their growth intentions.

Their growth potential is already inbred in their itty-bitty seeds.

Calling this creative act, of growing more cells, each loaded with information about how to create other cells intended to produce leaf matter, stem matter or fruit matter merely an “undirected process such as natural selection,” as one side publicly puts it, just doesn’t make any sense outside of a classroom.

Nor does the “God did it” supply a useful answer.

It is one reason though, that I agree with the co-founder of evolution theory, Alfred Russel Wallace.

After studying hundreds of thousands of species over decades in the Amazon and Malaysian jungles,Wallace said, “the whole universe, is not merely dependent on, but actually is the WILL of higher intelligences or of one Supreme Intelligence.” (Wallace’s emphases)

Wallace was bolder and more profound than Darwin.

His questions were even bigger than the ones I have posed in this post.

Wallace questioned how natural selection could ever explain the rise of consciousness and free will in humans.

He raised questions most biologists today are afraid to ask.

He had serious doubts that evolution could ever explain these issues.  Or even understand them.

Think about it.  If you have good insight into them and share them with the world you could be more famous than either Wallace or Darwin!


Leave a Reply