Creationism is really just quite straighforward valid science, it is also common knowledge which we use every day, and really can't do without. Far from being unscientific, creationism covers a huge, and rich class of knowledge, which knowledge is oppressed by mainstream science because mainstream science can't deal with things turning out one way or another, indeterminacy.
Creationist theory depends on the three principles of creator, act of creation, and the created object. I will illustrate the principles of creationism with Michealangelo's painting in the sixtine chapel.
The creator:
Who is Michealangelo? It is not sufficient in creationism (or actually it is mostly irellevant) to say how tall Michaelangelo is, or how much he weighs in considering him as the creator of the painting. Within the context of creationism identity-issues are solely about who is Michealangelo as the owner of his choices. Who is Michaelangelo in his heart, in his soul etc. Who does Michealangelo love and hate etc. Who Michaelangelo is this way can only be approached subjectively by relating your spirit to his, through your own choices.
To somehow pretend to make some objective appraisal of who Michealangelo is in his heart, to try to rule out subjectivity from judgement, merely results in coldhearted merciless judgement. But it is a judgement nevertheless, and such knowledge of the heart can never attain the status of fact.
So in this sense of identity-issues creationism is not objective, and generally opposes objectivity. There is no science about who Michaelangelo is as the owner of his choices, this is an art of judgement. So creationism here stands opposed by social-darwinist pseudoscience, such as evolutionary psychology, which proposes to objectively know emotions. So the statement "Michaelangelo is a loving person", might be a statement of fact to an evolutionary psychologist, but the same statement is regarded as an art of judgement by a creationist. Also what pseudoscientists commonly do is to assert as objective fact that a decision has no spiritual or emotional owner at all (such selfproclaimed "objective" assertions of lack of spirit are usually attached to findings of randomness).
The act of creation:
Creation is an effort of choice. Unlike identity issues, this is simply science. We may simply search and find the precise location of a decision. At this location we will find nothing, or zero, meaning no material, also called creatio-ex-nihilo. Why we find nothing at the location of a decision is because material predetermines a result. Our consideration of material is based on a past effecting a present. So it would make no sense if we would find a material thing at the location of a decision, because material, in our concept of it, only predetermines, and never decides.
Consider for instance Michaelangelo choosing what to do in painting the picture. Now if we consider Michaelangelo merely as a material object, we might suppose that the painting just flows directly from some genius-genes mediated by the environment unto the canvas. But the problem with such a theory is that it negates the possibility of an alternative result. So in this materialist scenario there is no actual choosing, because any alternative result is impossible.
So it is demonstrated, merely by definition, that it is impossible that we would find a material thing at the location of a decision, because of the impossiblity of material leading to an alternative.
The evidence is, that there is indeed nothing at the point of decision. Some credible scientists told me that the origin of randomness in a zener-diode was at the socalled "quantum mechanical zeropoint". From this point random noise is generated, meaning more or less, one can't deduce the pattern of electrons coming out of the diode, from the pattern of electrons coming into the diode. So it means the "pattern" of electrons is decided at the precise location of the qmz-point.
Some scientists consider the qmz point real, and that nothing exists there, others consider the qmz-point not real, since there is nothing there.
Further evidence to illustrate the logical coherency of the creationist interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of chances getting decided, is the probability-distribution of an electron around an atom.
File:HAtomOrbitals.png - Wikipedia
The creationist interpretation of this picture is that at the qmz point (which is in the center of the probabilitydistribution) is the location where the chance where the electron might be is decided. So this theory says among other things that;
- the location of the electron changes per decision
- and consequently that there is a speed or sequence of decisions
- it says that chances are basically real, and inhabit the future
- it says the location where the decision is made on the chance where the electron ends up, is not neccessarily the same as the location where the electron ends up. So the decision is at one location, the result may be at another location.
Now we have basically "seen" how creationism is true, seen a chance, and seen the location at which the decision on the chance is made.
From these basic assertions of fact follows the question, how does one decision relate to another decision?
The creation:
The creation in the sense of relating one decision to another, is only an informational entity. We derived the principle of creation from the principle of choosing, the simplest representation of choices are binary in the sense of 1 or 0. And so we must guess that somehow from choosing we derive informational entities constructed in terms of zero's and ones.
When Michealangelo created his painting, the purpose of his painting was not so much the painting itself, but it was for instance, the decision whether he liked the painting or not. So we can see how in creation one decision relates to another, and the creation (the painting) is the medium by which one decision relates to another.
And it is a similar principle with God and His original creation by choice of His free will, which choice in the end will relate to another decision, which is of course His Final Judgement on judgementday.
Some more points for consideration:
- the point at which a chance changes, or is realized or negated (becomes 1 or 0), is called a decision. So creationist science is largely based around tracing back the probabilities of the appearance of a thing, to the decisions at which those probabilities were determined. One might easily imagine this for instance in terms of a line chart of the probability of human beings coming to be. For instance we might say that the probability of people appearing later on, was already 90 percent at the start of the universe, given normal development of the universe. And so we might draw a chart where the probability goes up and down, and every turn in the chart relates to a decision at a location, until final appearance. That is how creationist science works.
- decisions relate a future of chances to a present, effects relate a past of causes to a present. One must always be aware of the timeperspective when criticizing creationism, because creationism is not a cause and effect principle, it is a principle of free will. It is very easy to fall into the trap of discounting creationism by applying the usual rules for criticizing scientific theories. Many of these rules in science only apply to cause and effect principles, and are irrellevant to principles of free will.
- again; the owners to decision are covered by identity-issues which fall outside of science. Such identities can only be approached subjectively through an art of one's own judgement. This broadly includes emotions, spiritual, what's in the heart the soul, God etc, all manner of judgement of good and evil, or loving and hateful etc. So it would be no use to ask for objective evidence of God, because within creationism such evidence is fashioned by an art of judgement.
- since emotions may be manifest at a point of decision, scientists must be ethically constrained to investigate points of decision. The reason why scientists are currently constrained in investigating people for instance, should be interpreted to be because of this reason. That is to say, we know at which location human decisons are, and we know that emotions may be manifest at a point of decision, we know that pain may be manifest at a point of decision, therefore we don't allow scientists to experiment with human beings at these particular points of decision for the reason that in doing so they may induce pain there. The safe side of ethics demands that we acknowledge in principle a spiritual owner to any decision anywhere.
and so on, and so on...
One can easily see that most of creationism is highly credible, because much of the knowledge is already engrained within common knowledge, and religion, and science also in many ways. Basically creationism is as credible as it is credible that things may turn out one way or another.
The current mode of interpretation of quantum-mechanics which basically omits decisions, and generally denies chances are real, has been heavily criticized from it's conception (Schroedinger's cat for instance). So creationism here only competes to a mode of interpretation that has already been acknowledged as weak.
Remembering that creationism gives insight into decisions and chances, and how one decision relates to another, decisionspeed etc., the sort of technological application we might expect creationism to lead to are things like:
- artificial consciousness in computers
- artifical beings of massive potential for emotions
- pseudo-superconductivity by centralizing many points of decision to one point and so the electron will pass through a collective of atoms per instance, rather then pass through many individual atoms per instance.
- increased efficiency of jetengines by the atoms being blown out of the engine being rapidly precisely stacked for optimal push ie. one relates the points of decison one to another, giving a structure.
- teleporting of objects through the quantumtunnels that appear at concentrated qmz-points, related to a concentration of qmz points elsewhere
- wheathermodels that locate points of decision in the weathersystem
Well of course, these are just conjectural technological applications that I thought of at the top of my head just now. But although the reasoning behind these creationist technologies is lacking, it is still reasonable to assume that there would be lots of technological application following from science about decisions, the location of them, how they relate to one another, the decisionspeed etc. simply because knowledge about "decision" comprises a fundamental class of knowledge. How much technological application follows from knowledge of chance and decision, may be equal to how much technology followed from knowledge of cause and effect, these are both fundamental classes of knowledge.
One may find in nature "natural democracies", and "natural dictatorships", that is to say that there is a potential for rich and meaningful knowledge of structures of decisionpoints that exist presently in nature, but are outside of our sight simply because we aren't looking for points of decision. And so creationism gets us closer to the truth, which was the purpose in the first place.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
™ Version 4.2