3. A fair practice of science
There is only one truth in fundamental science: the way nature works
Nature works in only one way. One who investigates the way nature really works, will be rewarded with their findings being replicated in a controlled environment, and eventually being applied to daily life. In this way, taxpayers will have a Return on Investment in scientific funding.
For centuries, Christians were leading in fundamental science (Basic research). These scientists observed the way nature — God's creation — works, then replicated their findings in a controlled environment, after which their findings could be applied to daily life, in fields like physics (Isaac Newton and Arthur Combton), mathematics (Leonhard Euler and Bernhard Riemann), chemistry (Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier), electromagnetism (Alessandro Volta, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell), computer science (Charles Babbage and George Boole), and genetics (Gregor Mendel — who is called "father of modern genetics" — and Ronald Fisher). By applications to daily life — based on their findings — Christian scientists provided Return on Investment to taxpayers, which we still benefit from today.
Belief can complement science
Science is about observed phenomena, while belief is about unobserved phenomena. However, one who's belief describes the best the way nature works, will have a strong advantage in fundamental science. In this way, belief can complement science.
One who investigates nature, investigates God's creation
Nowadays, atheists are leading in some fields of science. Atheism is an ideology. Their ideal: There is no God. So, the atheistic ideology is a belief system based on the hope that God doesn't exist. However, one who investigates the way nature works, investigates God’s creation. As a consequence, atheists are practicing a kind of historical science rather than fundamental science: All hypotheses of the atheistic ideology can be traced back to hypothetical past events, mainly the Big Bang hypothesis and Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis. As such, referring to these hypothetical past events — as well as the dating of their hypothetical findings — appears to be crucial, in order to contribute to the atheistic ideology. Such references to the atheistic ideology are found in literally all their publications, like in press releases (news items), online articles (like on Wikipedia), nature documentaries, study books, and so-called scientific publications. Such a practice is called: propaganda.
Not a single hypothesis of the atheistic ideology will ever be applied to daily life
Not being based on the way nature works, not a single hypothesis of the atheistic ideology will ever be (honestly) replicated in a controlled environment, let alone be applied to daily life:
Atheists are unable to replicate the Big Bang hypothesis — let alone to apply this hypothesis to daily life — because they are unable to create everything from nothing;
Atheists are unable replicate a spontaneous appearance of life from non-living matter, because laws of nature prevent life from being created from non-living matter. For example, oxygen will oxidize — destroy — amino acids before life is created. So, atheists are unable to apply this hypothesis to daily life. It takes a supernatural being — not being subject to the laws of nature — to create life from non-living matter;
Evolution occurs within one kind (family classification). However, Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis assumes that evolution (also) occurs across family classifications, while believers of Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis are unable to evolve for example microbes to plants or animals, nor in a lab, nor in simulation on a supercomputer. Let alone, to apply this hypothesis to daily life;
The Extraterrestrial life hypothesis — the hypothesis that extraterrestrial life may exist — is purely based on the hypothesis of a spontaneous origin of life: “If life did arise on earth by itself, it would be inconceivable that this is the only planet upon which there is life”. Not supporting a spontaneous origin of life, also the Extraterrestrial life hypothesis is not supported by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It includes the fear for extraterrestrial life, which is spread by atheism, not by Judaism, Christianity and Islam;
The Oort cloud — the birth place of comets — is not located, only a swarm of comets;
None of the endless series of hypotheses on 'modern' (particle) physics — called the Standard Model — can be honestly be replicated, let alone be applied to daily life. It includes hypotheses like the string hypothesis, spacetime, antimatter (*), dark matter, dark energy, black holes (**), gravitational waves, Higgs boson and Majorana fermion. For example, researchers of the Delft University of Technology wanted to utilize the Majorana fermion to make quantum computers more stable. However, after years of research, they have recently admitted that they couldn't find the Majorana fermion;
Artificial Intelligence (AI) may deliver useful engineering techniques. However, engineering is limited to deliver specific solutions to specific problems, while fundamental science delivers generic solutions. Artificial Intelligence is not based on a natural definition of intelligence, as a set of natural laws. Therefore, AI is not intelligent by itself. In fact, AI — in general — is limited to perform repetitive tasks, and artificial neural networks — in particular — are limited to pattern recognition and pattern generation. As a consequence, AI doesn’t deliver a natural foundation for understanding what human intelligence is. Nevertheless, some atheists believe that the Artificial General Intelligence hypothesis (AGI) — or Strong AI — will lead to human-level AI. Moreover, they are spreading fear for human-level AI, taking our jobs or even taking over the world. This fear is not supported by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In fact, not being based on a natural definition of intelligence, as a set of natural laws, Artificial Intelligence is unable to replace any job that requires a certain amount of human intelligence.
Like the Christian scientists mentioned above, I stand in the Christian tradition of investigating and replicating the way nature really works. I believe that life and the universe are intelligently designed. And I believe that any intelligent design can be unraveled through reverse engineering. I have identified the human language as a source of natural intelligence. And I believe that the intelligent design of the human language can be unraveled through reverse engineering, based on Laws of Intelligence that are naturally found in the Human Language.
(*) Positrons are subatomic particles rather than antimatter.
(**) Black holes are strong magnetic fields rather than a region of spacetime.
3.1. Overwhelming evidence...
Believers of Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for this hypothesis. However, in the same way, we can claim there is “overwhelming evidence” for Santa Claus too:
Advertisements forecast his coming;
Then he appears everywhere at once;
Presents are given;
His address is known: North pole 1;
You can meet him in person;
And if you post/mail/text/app a message, you will get a response.
But we all know: Santa Claus is just a belief. In the same way, Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis is just a belief.
3.2. If you do not believe in cows...
We all know: milk contains components like water, living bacteria and fungi.
If you do not believe in cows – and you would examine a glass of milk – you will have to conclude: The living bacteria and fungi have created the milk from water.
But if you do believe in cows, you will know that these animals produce milk from grass, (herbs) and water. Furthermore: You will know that the living bacteria and fungi actually degenerate the milk, instead of creating it. In the same way, evolution is: degeneration. (*)
(*) This example originates from Peter Scheele. More info on Wikipedia: Devolution (biology). The cows are of course a metaphor for God, who has designed and created the laws of nature, the universe and life.
3.3. Mona Lisa
When I look at the Mona Lisa, I know it is a master piece of a genius. And exactly one person has claimed to be the artist: Leonardo da Vinci. I believe him, because he has left a detailed description how he has created this painting. We can learn from this artist how to use Natural Laws of Geometry in order to create beauty.
When I look at nature, I know it is a master piece of a genius. And exactly one person has claimed to be the artist: God. I believe him, because he has left a detailed description how he has created nature. We can learn from this artist for example how to define intelligence in a natural way (as a set of natural laws), and how to use Laws of Intelligence that are naturally found in the Human Language in order to natural intelligence through natural language in software.
3.4. Self-organizing systems
In this ‘scientific’ paper, self-organization is defined to refer “to a broad range of pattern-formation processes in both physical and biological systems”. However, no distinction is made between static 'self-organization' – which is limited to pattern formation – and dynamic organization, which requires natural intelligence.
Illustrating dynamic organization, using the example of a kid’s playroom: When children play, the room ends up messy. The room has no self-organizing capabilities. So, the intelligent influence of the parents – usually the mother – is required: “Let’s clean up your room together. This doll doesn’t belong on the ground. Let’s put it together with the other dolls. And let’s put this toy car together with the other toy cars”.
Later on, when the kid matures, the dolls and toy cars are either archived or given away, in order to make room for a homework / computer desk. It’s all part of the ongoing – dynamic – organizing process, taught to the child.
As an adult, the former child has learned to organize without any help. It is self-organizing.
Natural pattern formation is a static process, and the result of natural laws;
Organization is a dynamic process. It comes with rules / laws, and requires intelligent influence;
Self-organization is a dynamic process, and is synonym to natural intelligence.
3.5. Complex systems
According to Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis, evolution leads to increasing complexity. But increasing complexity defies all rules of common sense:
“The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak” (Hans Hofmann);
“Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler” (Albert Einstein);
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough” (Albert Einstein);
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction” (Albert Einstein).
If an observer considers a system to be complex, it is the observer who lacks overview, knowledge and understanding. Only if the observer considers a system unnecessarily complex, he/she has a better overview and understanding than the designer of that system.
Natural language is considered to be a complex system, too complex to be processed by current techniques. However, an example like the Autonomous generation of questions doesn't exceed secondary school level. So, it must be a lack of overview and knowledge of scientists, by which they unable to understand the childishly simple function in language of conjunction “or”.
3.6. Super-intelligence (machines surpassing human intelligence)
First of all, it is funny that some believers of Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis believe that super-intelligence can evolve in machines:
while all machines are (intelligently) designed;
while both intelligence and design originate from the bible;
while the theory of evolution has no satisfying explanation for the origin of intelligence;
while scientists are unable to define intelligence as a set of natural laws;
while some evolutionists even deny the existence of intelligence;
and while neurons are not essential to intelligence, in the same way as feathers and flapping wings are not essential to aviation.
Besides that, we really need to distinguish “machines surpassing human capabilities in a limited domain” from “machines surpassing human intelligence”. Super-intelligence requires a machine to surpass humans in all intelligent tasks. Otherwise, it would only surpass humans in a limited domain of programmed tasks.
First, let's consider a few systems that surpass human capabilities in only one limited domain:
Deep Blue was able to beat humans in playing chess, but not in playing the game Go;
AlphaGo is able to beat humans in playing the game Go, but not in playing chess;
Bulldozers are able to beat humans in moving an amount of sand. But they are unable to play chess, unable to play Go, unable to cook diner, unable to babysit, and so on.
Now, let's assume we want to build a machine that surpasses humans in a more than one domain. Let's consider to integrate a chess computer with a bulldozer. In this way, we will get a chess-playing bulldozer, or a sand-moving chess computer, that surpasses humans in both playing chess and in moving an amount of sand. It is possible. But it has not been done yet, because such a machine – integrating the capabilities of different domains – is very unpractical.
Even if we try to integrate systems of domains that are less different – like a car and an airplane – we will eventually discover that the design of the integrated vehicle is weaker than the individual designs of the car and the airplane. So, it is possible to make a road-legal airplane, or a car able to fly. But the integrated vehicle will always be weaker than the individual designs of the car and the airplane.
Apparently, we are limited to design systems that surpass human capabilities in a limited domain. It proves to me that we have a divine origin. I am sure, the brain has an intelligently designed operating system (OS). Without such an OS, neurons are limited to pattern recognition. I am reverse-engineering the algorithms of the language center of the human brain, that provide us with the ability to reason autonomously.
3.6.1. Spreading fear for super-intelligence
Believers of Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis are unable to define intelligence in a natural way (as a set of natural laws), and they are unable to design super-intelligence. Instead, they hope – or fear – that evolution will eventually evolve super-intelligence in machines. So, in their world view, evolution can accomplish things that they can’t do. In their world view, evolution is supernatural. And believing in a supernatural entity is called: a belief, a religion.
Actually, atheism is the only belief system that spreads fear for super-intelligence. Beliefs like Judaism, Christianity and Islam officially believe that respectively Yahweh, God and Allah has created life and the universe. On the other hand, Hinduism and Buddhism have no explanation for the origin of life and the universe. In search for an answer, some of them combine their religion with the belief in Darwin's common descent evolutionary hypothesis, including the fear for super-intelligence.
Nevertheless, let's assume that we should fear super-intelligence because of Moore's Law. In that case, super-intelligence will first operate in slow-motion, and getting pace later on. Then we have enough time “to pull the plug”.
But what if a robot gets out of control? A robot has no mind of its own. It is just a machine. And machines have a manufacturer. So, it will be same as any other machine getting out of control: You switch it off and sue the manufacturer for delivering an unsafe product.
3.6.2. Free will and morality
First of all, it is funny that some evolutionists believe that machines can have morality, while morality originates from the bible.
According to the bible, humans separate from animals by having a spirit, which provides humans a free will and a set of morals. Spirits – being supernatural – are by definition not bound by laws of nature. Therefore, spirits can't be captured in machines, which are bound by laws of nature. So, a machine will never have a spirit; a free will and an autonomously controlled set of morals like humans have.
But I only agree to a certain extent on his claim that computers can at best simulate intelligent conversations: “if there is a computer program that allows a computer to carry on an intelligent conversation in a written language, the computer executing the program would not understand the conversation either”. He clearly didn't think of the possibility that Laws of Intelligence that are naturally found in the Human Language can be used to artificially implement natural intelligence in computers through natural language, by which the machine is able to organize knowledge autonomously.