In February I have started posting on t.o. with this post:
It was the first post to such a forum in my life (even in
all my lives), but in the meanwhile I have accumulated around
200 posts, all but one of them to talk.origins. The only
exception is a yesterday's reply to a post appearing on some
If have learned a lot from talk.origins, e.g. what ID means.
I was also surprised to see how little has actually been
achieved by abiogenesis research and that the fossil record
seems to be less continuous than I had thought previously.
But if someone will look at the 'fossil' record in the
far future, he will find that ships, cars, trains,
airplanes and rockets appeared almost instantanously.
Nevertheless there has been a continous evolution of
such things over several hundred years.
A consequently neo-Darwinian explanation would look like
this: random mutations occur in humans which make them
a little better in constructing such vehicles. Those who
construct the best vehicles are the fittest, survive
longer and have more offspring. Every technological
progress depends on corresponding random mutations in
the genome and subsequent selection.
All evolutionists should agree that such an explanation
is absurd. But the explanation is considered absurd only
because humans are assumed to be outside nature, absurd
because in the case of humans, creativity exceeding random
changes with subsequent selection must be admitted.
Within a panpsychistic framework, the Cambrian explosion
can be compared with the current technological explosion.
The primary cause of the appearance of solid macroscopic
organisms lies not in lucky mutations of living cells
but in the vertical and horizontal spreading of
cooperation, specialisation and normal 'technological
Orthodox evolutionists assume that current biochemical
laws are the same as some billions of years ago. I,
however, assume that proteins which folded in the past
do not necessarily fold today. That's a testable
prediction, because in several cases it should be
possible to find out amino acid sequences of rather
different ancestors of current proteins.
I go even further. I don't think that chemical
elements which are stable today were stable in the
far past. The ability of protons and neutrons to form
stable atomic nuclei has not always existed but had to
evolve. Neutrons evolved in neutron stars by the union
of protons and electrons under extremely high pressures.
Before starting posting on talk.origins I considered
myself rather as a hyper-evolutionist. But here on
talk.origins I had to learn that I'm also a crypto- or
I have much in common with evolutionists, but I also have
much in common with creationists. I have much in common
with atheists, but I also have much in common with theists
(but not very much with deists).
If opinions are defended in such an intransigent way as in
the evolution-creation-panspermia-debate, it is reasonable
to assume that all sides are partially right and partially
I think that creationists are right insofar as the
emergence of life without any form of creative intelligence
is absolutely impossible.
Evolutionists are right in assuming a more or less
continuous emergence of life and in rejecting
discontinuous interventions from outside nature.
Panspermists are right in recognizing that living cells
are so complex that it becomes rather improbable that all
the many biochemical passways and the complex genetic code
could have evolved on the early earth in a relatively short
At least in one respect I'm no different from most
creationists, orthodox evolutionists and panspermists:
like them I'm convinced that I am (in principle) right.
If I had to recommend one single of my several posts to
the talk.origins folks, I would choose 'Continuity
between Creationism and Evolutionism':
There are still two themes I would have liked to discuss
here: demography and reincarnation. Maybe I'll come back on
October, the 12th, when the official child '6 billion' is
expected to be born. The date of human population reaching
6 billion had to be postponed several times. Worldwide
fertility decline and the adjustment of birth rates to
death rates in more and more world regions are big enigmas
within Darwinian (Malthusian) demography.
Thanks, cheers and good luck for all!
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
* Materialistic evolution theories are essentially
* SUPER-CREATION or HYPER-DESIGN theories: the universe
* was hyper-designed and super-created in such a complex
* way that blind downhill processes can design and
* create whole ecosystems.