update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

quote:

---

I posted here before about Dubois' theory of strong anticipation, and how it supports the creationist view of things. Now I have an update on how that theory is changing scientists' view of things towards intelligent design theory.
  —Syamsu

---

Quick point: Intelligent design is not a theory.

quote:

---

In the big picture, creation is a free act, so I have been looking for a theory that supports the fact that freedom is real. Such a theory would inevitably lead to think towards intelligent design theory, or so to say, thinking about things coming to be as a consequence of decisions leads to thinking in terms of intelligent design.

​

So in the detailed picture, the theory I found which confirms freedom is real, is "strong anticipation" theory by Daniel Dubois. Basically what this theory states is that things have a future, and they compute their next state with that future. With strong anticipation, the anticipation is embedded in the laws of nature, weak anticipation refers to making a predictive model in the brain.

​

Somebody else named Edwina Taborsky then applied this theory to the biological realm and found that:

​

"The semiosic biological system is not a random or mechanical process but an informed, reasoned and self-controlled process."

​

"Any randomness is internal and reduced to zero by the time a ”best solution’ is chosen by the system. The emergent model is immediately functional and there is no testing by struggle as required in the thesis of Natural Selection."
  —Syamsu

---

I've read this more times than I care to admit... and I'm still not sure how you came to these conclusions.1) You say that creation is a "free act". By what do you judge the "freedom" of the act, and how could you possibly contrast this to suggest that something else is not a "free act"?2) You indicated you were looking for something to support the idea that freedom is real. What type of freedom are you referring to? And why do you believe it might not be real?3) As for this anticipation theory... either I understand it, and Dubois is an idiot... or I just don't get it. He seems to suggest that natural elements or systems somehow "know" what (or where) they will be in the future, and that they act to fulfill that future. I'm sorry, but I can't see any reason to believe any of this is true.