MrIntelligentDesign
Disclaimer: Due to the prestigious nature of the subject matter, MrIntelligentDesign was allowed to write the vast majority of this page. This is what MrIntelligentDesign ACTUALLY believes, in his words. (gdc)
Source of comments: MrID will write like this: "(gdc)", stands for "Great Debate Community" for all comments and posts that MrID did not write to distinguish his initial comments from other members' comments.
Basic Description
<infobox>
<title source="title1"> <default>MrIntelligentDesign</default> </title> <image source="image1">
</image> <group> <header>Information</header> <label>Gender</label> <label>Scientific Name</label> <label>Positions</label> <label>Debating Against</label> <label>Skills</label> <label>Links</label> </group> </infobox>
He is the discoverer of the real and new "intelligence" in reality and in science. He is also the founder and father of the new Intelligent Design <id>. The old ID is being endorsed by Discovery Institute (DI).
Most people need to earn a degree, but Edgar was born with a civil engineering degree, which makes him a very special person. (gdc)
His real name is Edgar Alberto Postrado, a freelance scientist and freelance discoverer in science. He has YouTube videos in which he lectures and shares his idea freely about the real "intelligence" and the new Intelligent Design <id>.
Famous Science Books
The original manuscript of ALL science books that you will be reading were peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:
"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature
"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal
"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." - Behavioral and Brain Sciences
"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
You can read the details on the peer-review process and attempts for peer-review from this coming book, "PEER-REVIEW and the New Intelligent Design , a Documentary". Let real science speaks.
Steve McRae's "MrIntelligentDesign thinks he should win the Nobel prize for his work on ID" on (3/2/17): (gdc)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKCOyjpsu0M
"I am the new Einstein" (LOL!) (gdc)
With his brilliant mind, Edgar has written this in the editorial review on Amazon for all of his own books:
When Einstein had shared his new discoveries on 1905, no one had ever
understood him. No one knew him. Although on his time, science
journals were not clinging to religious practices like in our
generations, he had easily submitted his new discoveries to those
journals even though no one could understand him. He waited many years
for the world to know his new discoveries. Einstein waited hopelessly.
BUT a famous scientist named Max Planck had read, seen and understood
his new discoveries as published and Planck was the one who had helped
Einstein's discoveries to be understood. Planck had brought Einstein's
discoveries to the world and to the whole scientific community. Through
Planck, Einstein had become famous.
NOW, even until today, no one
had ever understood my new discoveries. I am looking also for a
scientist, the most famous one (LOL!) but the most intellectual one who
could understand my new discoveries and help me share my new discoveries
to the world and be understood - and at the end, I will become very
famous and rich! LOL! Are you my Max Planck?
Praising Words from Happy Customers
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design - Dec 19, 2013
"In addition to all the grammar and punctuation errors coupled with difficult sentence structures and missing words, the logic was often difficult for me follow. It seemed to me the author developed his own definition of intelligence and used that to discount science and anything conformity the Theory of Evolution. I am still not sure what his "philosophy" is or why any of us should believe it." - By Kindle Customer on March 15, 2014
Atheism and Intelligent Design - January 2, 2014
"Utterly absent any form of thought or logic, even if this book were readable it would still have nothing of worth inside. Unfortunately, like the rest of Mr Postrado's work, it isn't readable. A self-published ebook, because no publishing company would accept the awful grammar and syntax, this book contains logic so astounding in its utter absence it almost becomes a work of art. A really, REALLY bad work of art." - By Jack Baxter on August 19, 2016
"The first sentence of this book isn't even grammatically correct, and yet it claims it's been peer reviewed and caught the attention of Nature? This is a scam of religious proportions. Even Jesus would be rolling in his grave, if he had a grave or even existed." - By Ian Lunney on June 16, 2017
Psychology Of Intelligent Design - January 12, 2014
"Do not purchase this book under any circumstances. There is nothing of any worth to be found within. Postrado talks about his 'amazing discovery' of the 'real intelligence' which consists of listing far too many different definitions of intelligence, narcissistically praising himself and complaining about the large number of actual scientists who rejected his utterly vacuous and nonsensical claims." - By Jack Baxter on August 19, 2016
Biology Of Intelligent Design - January 12, 2014
"Edgar Postrado has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He has made no discoveries in biology, indeed he has no idea whatsoever what evolution is or how it works. This is from the man who also claims to be an expert in physics, psychology, philosophy, engineering and now apparently biology, and that the only reason his work has been turned down by every professional institute is that the actual scientists simply didn't understand his work. Yes, that's right. The reason why he's been rejected for peer-review repeatedly is because he's just too smart for the other scientists. This book is utterly lacking in anything resembling logic or coherent thought, the grammar is awful and the syntax renders whatever point he's trying to argue barely understandable. He also goes around Amazon, Goodreads and YouTube hawking his terrible books and attacking and insulting anyone who criticises him. Do not buy this book under any circumstances whatsoever." - By Jack Baxter on August 19, 2016
"A Filipino civil engineer tries to explain how a deity is necessary in physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy. All things he is utterly unqualified to discuss. I tried to read the biology book (I'm a biologist and am best able to judge the quality of the claims in that book out of them all), and it is absolutely horrid. The author misunderstands and/or misrepresents the theory of evolution, cannot write in coherent English, and his entire justification for being qualified is literally showing a quote from Dawkins how an engineer would never make a mistake like the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe. Therefore, as an engineer, in the author's logic, he is qualified to critique biology. I kid you not, this is his reasoning. I assume the rest are equally bad, but will not expose myself to any more of this garbage." - By Justin Burrows on October 4, 2016
"This man has no intelligible hypotheses, arguments or evidence. You have been warned! Even the English is incredibly poor and self edited. I did some research about him and he really is not a credible authority figure. He sometimes appears to be religious (he explicitly says this in one of his youtube videos) and also suggests that atheism is a religion!" - By JeSuisJim on January 22, 2017
Physics of Intelligent Design - January 12, 2014
"Dear Reader,
If you are unfortunate enough to have invested $3.50 in this e-book, hoping to receive some sort of information or knowledge, let me first express my sincerest condolences.
To begin with, let me just say that I am not very comfortable being the first to post a review of this text. It occurs to me that the very best thing that could happen to crackpot works like this is that they be totally ignored. I am praying that nobody gets the idea from the bare existence of my review that this book is actually WORTHY of the time it took me to write this. My motivation for taking this time was simply that Mr. Postrado is flouting Amazon's discussion forum rules, by hawking this miserable tripe.
Secondly, a note of caution seems to be in order: If you take advantage of Amazon's previewing "look inside this book" function, as luck would have it, the content you are allowed to view is limited to a small part of the beginning of the book which contains largely extended quotes from other authors, as background. These quotes are actually readable in a way the corpus of the rest of the book is not, due to the fact that their origin is not Mr. Postrado's wonderfully confused mind. Thus, I suppose it is conceivable that one might read some of these quotes and get the impression that the topics covered might turn out to be interesting, once Postrado actually gets rolling. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. When the author finally gets to the meat of his points, what of it that is not completely indecipherable (due to his poor command of the English language and grammar) is a long litany of conceptually vacant, unfounded assertions, and false claims, mixed with a healthy dose of hubris, conceit, and just plain nonsense that probably has no truth value to it, whatsoever. (That is, as Dirac might have said, "it's not even wrong.") For example, in "location 428" (no page numbers are provided, further compounding the confusion), we are told that:
"In the Christian biblical God, God is said to be in Trinity, thus, *A* can be both *A'*, *A'*, and *A'* simultaneously at once, moving in space with three different locations with simultaneous different time."
If you, as Reader, might be inclined to question this assertion, Postrado helpfully provides some math to support this:
"t = A → A' (in X-axis), t = A → A' (in Y-axis), t = A → A' (in Z-axis) or
t = A' → A (in X-axis), t = A' → A (in Y-axis), t = A' → A (in Z-axis)"
Convinced? (I know I was!) But just in case you weren't, he continues:
"Thus the Intelligent Design [a 'theory' Mr. Postrado--modestly--now claims as his own invention(!)] predicts that if an Intelligent Designer or Intelligent Agent exists, that designer possesses three or more dimensions of time, which means, He cannot be created."
While I'm willing to take it on faith that this gobbledegook "means" this to Mr. Postrado's bizarre mind, this explanation is certainly not very meaningful to me. If you, Gentle Reader, manage to ascribe a sensible interpretation to any of it, I'd be curious to hear it.
Unless you are like me, and have a certain anthropological interest in finding the most crackpot-y stuff that's around, there is no other viable reason to purchase this e-book. If, after fair warning, you elect to do it against my recommendation, then you are probably as big a fool as Mr. Postrado." - By Randall R Young on January 17, 2014
"An absolute 0 here, the author has no clue what he talks about, he has no clue about science, this book contains nothing of value unless you wish to torment yourself or just get a good laugh." - By Zelos on May 3, 2015
"Execrable drivel by a complete, total and utter ignoramus of the lowest order." - By Check Six on November 1, 2016
"I liked this book. It provides analysis of the basic problems of physics. Something different, a different way to approach meanings of physics." - By Rigas Vasileios on July 31, 2014
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down - Jan 16, 2014
"Although the author tortures the English language, he unfortunately does not force it to reveal anything.
"Have you think about these before opening the book?"
Such was one of the sentences in the very first paragraph of this book, and it's a fairly accurate indicator of what's to come.
Postrado continues that proud creationist tradition of putting forth his arguments, completely ignoring the highly critical responses and refutations and then declaring his arguments unbeaten.
The grammar in this book is terrible, with syntax so distorted that it would make anybody with a decent grip on the language cringe, such as labelling Michael J Behe "one proponents of Intelligent Design".
The arguments are even worse, such as "if intelligence is dead, it will force us to predict that since human could produce PC, a stone could produce a PC too, since the two will just be using the same "natural processes", as the obvious pattern in/of nature." Just a few pages in and I have already run out of fingers with which to count the grammatical errors.
"for four years span, I did not stop thinking about the topic of 'intelligence' for almost every day"
"This was the story of my quest of the discovery of intelligence that will surely turn the scientific world upside down."
Postrado refers to information found online as "in the internet".
He also spends pages and pages devoted to different definitions of 'intelligence' that he copied from the dictionary or various textbooks, presumably to pad it out a bit more. How many definitions he uses I can't rightly tell you, as I gave up counting after 67.
The grammar and logic presented in this book wouldn't be acceptable in primary school, and at some points it gets so that you can barely comprehend what he is saying, so how he expects to 'turn the scientific world upside down' is simply beyond me. To be fair, English is Postrado's third language, but the fact that he didn't hire an editor/proof-reader (or couldn't find one) is very telling." - By Jack Baxter on May 8, 2015
"Reading this "book"(if you care to call it that) will leave you less intelligent than when you started. This should be sold along side toilet paper, since they serve the same purpose." - By asix on May 13, 2015
"Edgar cannot even understand that position he's attempting to oppose. He reliably strawmans the work of Charles Darwin, modern understandings of the Theory of Evolution, and even the position of the Intelligent Design proponents. He has no concept of how to perform a scientific experiment, formulate a hypothesis, or analyze the results. Full stop." - By Inane on February 10, 2017
"Great book with undeniable science. Easy to read even for laymen!" - By William H. Smith Jr. on April 19, 2015
== Why the Topic of "Intelligence" Matters in Science ==
The direct answer is in the form of question: why science differentiates/categorizes Hydrogen (H) to Helium (He) in the Periodic Table of Elements? Or why categorize all living organisms between "kingdom" to "phylum" in Taxonomy? Or why science differentiates "electron" to "proton"? The same answer is applicable to all of the above questions, including the heading/title of this topic.
The topic of intelligence helps naturalistic science to differentiate and categorize all objects (X) or all processes (X) in the whole existence when the topic of origin or source of or cause and effect is in question.
Thus, to dismiss and neglect the topic of intelligence is to dismiss falsification process/method in naturalistic science, for falsification process/method requires two or more alternatives explanations/premises to any given object of study in science, for testing and comparison by using empirical evidences. And it is called the Scientific Method/Way of knowing reality. Through this, real evidence in science could be established, resulting for the correct explanation of reality.
This is where the whole concept and strength of the new Intelligent Design <id> based its scientific explanation after <id> discovered the real intelligence. It is not only the topic of intelligence that the new <id> nailed but the categorization/differentiation/comparison method also of all X in the topic of origins, as stated above. Sometimes that method is also being called by MrID as "Eventonomy" (for categorizing events/processes) as mirrored from Taxonomy.
MrID on Evolution (Discussion)
Evolution: Through the Science of the New Intelligent Design <id> Edit
By using the science of the new Intelligent Design, or <id> for short, <id> has through its "Biological Interrelation," (BiTs) shown that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) had been using the following assumptions/presuppositions or scientific conclusions as basis for ToE:
>Life is probably not intelligently designed (not intellen) since all species might have been following purely natural processes alone. If life is not intelligently designed (intellen), so are all species and their origins and behaviors with respect to time, surroundings and conditions;
> All processes that deal with living organisms are not following intelligent principles;
>All Xs that deal with living organisms are not categorized as "intelligently designed (intellen) X". Thus, all biological living organisms and their structures and anatomical parts are all categorized as simply natural Xs (naturen). - from MrIntelligentDesign
(TAKE NOTE: If you want to add your correction or clarification or discuss this topic (ToE and evolution) with MrID, there is a section on MrID's profile that deals with this topic. )
This section is an actual discussion, as a form of debate, between members of GDC and MrID on the topic of evolution. Please, feel free to add your science comments directly.
Correction (gdc member):
Setting aside the fact that "BiTs" is only valid in the mind of our friend, not taken seriously by any scientist anywhere, ever, and that these three "assumptions/presuppositions" are all the same thing, this is all wrong since the theory of evolution doesn't make any of these assumption/presupposition, nor ever needed to.
For one thing, evolution can occur as a result of intelligent intervention. Never heard of artificial selection before? The dog in your house and the banana that you eat are all "intelligently evolved." Of course, most life isn't subject to artificial selection. In this regard, natural selection, genetic drift, and other mechanisms that don't involve any intelligence are fully capable of accounting for the diversity of life that we observe and there is no scientific evidence that any biological processes are being controlled and / or the result of any intelligence. And a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise.
None of these are assumptions nor presuppositions, they are supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. For clarification, while the theory of evolution doesn't conclude that intelligence is involved, that doesn't mean the conclusion is that no intelligence was involved. This is a subtle, but huge distinction and a misconception that needs to be addressed over and over again.
Many people, most people in fact, believe that any natural process, even the ones that are seemingly random and not guided by any intelligence, are being controlled by an all powerful, intelligent entity. For those people, everything that the theory of evolution concludes is in some way the result of a master plan, indicative of a higher power. Thus, evolution doesn't refute intelligence in general, only specific forms of it like "special creation." All of this shows that our friend here is talking out of his ass.
Clarification (MrID):
Because of space limitation, MrID did not include here some explanations but, for fair science, let us clarify (for Correction as posted by member of GDC) and add some info for thought:
- Yes, ToE must first clarify the real meaning and explanation of the topic of "intelligence" in science, as seen in reality. Does ToE follow the 71 researched definitions of "intelligence" or follow the correct definition from the new Intelligent Design <id>? Which? If ToE will follow the 71 definitions, then, ToE is wrong in the topic of "intelligence," but if ToE follows the new <id>, then ToE must be dropped/uprooted in science and be replaced by Biological Interrelation (BiTs);
- If "intelligence" is used in science per <id>, then, science will be forced to accept the fact that life also is intelligently designed (intellen), so is the cell, so is DNA, so are all structures/parts of a living organism, thus evolution (ToE) must be dropped since ToE uses natural selection and ToE never uses intelligence. It must be "interrelation" by using Intelligent Selection (one major mechanism of BiTs);
- If "intelligence" is used in science per <id>, then an Intelligent Agent (IA) is already predicted, which means if this IA had used "intelligence" in the origin of life (biogenesis), it is imperative or predicted that this same IA will also use "intelligence" in the diversities of all living organisms - thus, BiTs must replace ToE. - from MrIntelligentDesign
Correcting the "Clarification" (gdc member):
Because of some limitation, the clarification failed to address anything that was previously said in the correction, nor does it clarify anything at all. It only made more unwarranted assertions.
- No, ToE doesn't need to follow any arbitrary demands of a wannabe scientist who cannot coherently describe his definition of the word "intelligence". What definition is he talking about? Nobody knowns and our friend gave no reason why anyone should give a damn about it. Also, our friend asserted that if ToE fails in one regard, his versions of intelligent design must be right. This is a logical fallacy called the argument form ignorance. If one explanation is wrong, another explanation doesn't automatically become right. And to make it worse, ToE isn't wrong and our friend doesn't have any explanation to compete with it.
- Non sequitur. Scientists obviously use their intelligence, duh. That doesn't mean they need to accept that life is the product of intelligent design, not evolution through common ancestry. And once again, ToE does use intelligence sometimes, e.g. artificial selection.
- Another non sequitur, two in fact. (1) Just because scientists use their intellect, that doesn't mean any intelligent agent was responsible for the origin of life and (2) nor does it mean that any intelligent agent was responsible for the diversification of all life. By the same reasoning, any intelligent potamologist must conclude that the path every river takes must've been planned by a river course committee, instead of just being the result of the topography and gravity. And every time a team of forensics stumble upon a dead body, the only cause of death they can conclude is a homicide. That is some faulty reasoning, to put it mildly. Also "biogenesis" is the formation of new life from already existing life, i.e. reproduction. It obviously cannot describe the origin of life. That is abiogenesis, the formation of life from non-life.
Clarification 2 (for Correction 1 & 2) (MrID) (including the responses gdc member)
1. (From Correction 1): If evolution (ToE) can occur as a result of intelligent intervention like artificial selection, then, ToE is directly pointing to an Intervener, or Agent of Originator or Agent for Effect.
Sure, dog breeders are an example. (Direct answer to discussion. - from MrID)
If there is an Agent/Intervener who could probably design life and change its course, then, by simple logic, ToE points to a direction of guided evolution (ToE).
No example of an agent that drives artificial selection, like dog breeders, could possibly design life. Your logic is highly questionable. - (Indirect Answer 1 to discussion. - from MrID)
When ToE is guided, then, the Agent/Intervener who/which guides all living organisms will never use Natural Selection as one main mechanisms for ToE. Natural Selection is not and too different from Intelligent Selection (for Biological Interrelation, BiTs), thus, ToE is wrong and messing the explanation of reality in biology.
Incorrect, both Natural selection and artificial selection are both mechanisms that have been demonstrated to guide evolution, thereby explaining a lot about biology. They are not mutually exclusive. - (Indirect Answer 2 to discussion. - from MrID)
2. (From Correction 1 & 2): ToE's supporters are using the term "intelligence". But there are 71 researched definitions of "intelligence" as being messed and used by ToE-guided ideas and the new Intelligent Design <id> had nailed the definition of "intelligence", which definitions of intelligence (1/72 probability) ToE uses?
Baseless assertions. What definition is he talking about? And gave no reason why we should care, again. - (Indirect Answer 3 to discussion. - from MrID)
3. (From Correction 2): The reason why ToE is wrong because ToE fails to categorically and specifically classify all processes and all objects (Xs) of topics that the living organisms are dealing with especially in the topic of "process" and "anything, X" like population, cell, anatomical members or structures of living organisms.
Some of the examples given make no sense like "anything, x", however evolution does deal with population, there is a whole branch of biology called "population genetics" that deals with the entire subject, and it is based on ToE. And explaining the cell is partially relevant to evolution, but also to abiogenesis. That is also addressed by ToE. And the evolution of anatomical structures are constantly addressed in science. Take your pick? The evolution of the tetrapod limb? What about the inner ear of mammals? Or the major body plans of animals in general? - (Indirect Answer 4 to discussion. - from MrID)
Once our science know how to separate all Xs between intelligently designed X (intellen) and non-intelligently designed X (naturen), then, from that result, science can concludes if all living organisms are really evolving (ToE) or interrelating (BiTs) with respect to time, place, condition of all living organisms. The result too will affect the course of changes of species and origins of species. Thus, by default, if ToE cannot provide a complete/exact explanation of reality in biological world while BiTs can, by default,
He commits the same fallacy that was pointed out earlier. The argument from ignorance. Just because one theory cannot provide a complete or exact explanation, that doesn't mean an unsupported idea becomes a valid alternative by default. - (Indirect Answer 5 to discussion. - from MrID)
ToE is wrong and BiTs is the only actual explanation of reality.
Assertion, not based on evidence. - (Indirect Answer 6 to discussion. - from MrID)
In analogy, Newton's Physics is different from Einstein's Physics, so is ToE and BiTs - they are too different. ToE is incomplete in science and in reality while BiTs has set and complete explanations (but could be refined and developed) in both science and in reality.
Correction: ToE has set and complete explanations (but could be refined and developed) in both science and in reality. BiTs is not science at all. - (Indirect Answer 7 to discussion. - from MrID)
4. (From Correction 2): It is true that all scientists use "intelligence" but as noted earlier, what do they mean when they say "intelligence"? Is it "problem-solution" or "problem-solution-solution"?
Is this a joke? - (Indirect Answer 8 to discussion. - from MrID)
And while those scientists dismiss "intelligence" in ToE (assume intelligence = 0), why they must still use "intelligence" when they talk/discuss about ToE? In science and in math, once a variable or constant, say m is dismissed as 0 (m = 0), that assumption must be used in all science and all calculations. But why ToE supporters and scientists, when faced with the topic of m are trying to change its value at will when they had already set that m = 0? Thus, ToE has no set of rules in science, which means, ToE has no set of basis of explanation and no basis for falsification, thus, ToE is wrong since ToE doesn't uses scientific method way of conducting real science.
This is incoherent rambling. - (Indirect Answer 9 to discussion. - from MrID)
5. (From Correction 2): BiTs acknowledges through its science book (Biology of the New Intelligent Design <id>), as discussed, that by using the flow of the river or earthquake or tsunamis or sandstorm or typhoon etc (and not life and living organisms) as objects for study, the mechanism for them is Natural Selection, that will lead to evolution (ToE). Which means, both evolution (ToE) and Natural Selection are fit for geological phenomena (Geology) since in Geology, especially, for example, the flow of the river, that phenomenon is both random and non-random.
Is he seriously saying that natural selection is applicable to geological phenomena? That must be the most stupidest thing I have ever heard. And that is saying something, considering I have talked to allot of creationists online. - (Indirect Answer 10 to discussion. - from MrID)
Non-random because you have an actual location of river; random because you don't know how gravity will form the flow of the river.
........Okay, I take it back, this is even stupider. - (Indirect Answer 11 to discussion. - from MrID)
But in biological world, in where life is the main goal of all living organisms, in biological world, all living organisms follow the mechanism of Intelligent Selection and life always follows a non-random approach , thus, directed or guided, either through a set of program or through set of limits on their cells/DNAs.
Non-random is not synonymous with intelligence. Gravity works non-randomly, yet it isn't a process guided by any intelligent agent. There are natural processes that are non-random, like natural selection. Our guy has no idea what he is talking about. - (Indirect Answer 12 to discussion. - from MrID)
Once a living organisms passed its limits for life, that individual or population will surely die. Thus, ToE is not for Biology. ToE is best for Geology and has nothing to do with Biology. BiTs is solely for biology.
I have no words at all. ToE is NOT for geology. It is biology. BiTs is solely for your tiny mind to appreciate, because no scientists will for good reasons. - (Indirect Answer 13 to discussion. - from MrID)
TAKE NOTE: MrID (Edgar) has no intention to debate anybody on the topic of "evolution" or ToE. You must answer direct to a scientific inquiries and questions if you want to debate with MrID for fair science since if you don't, it only shows that you are ignorant of science and reality, uneducated, un-intellectual and un-professional. If you want to continue the discussion above, there are 13 indirect answers from GDC members that had been left behind by another GDC member who has no explanatory power in science. Help that uneducated member to answer directly those 13 unanswered questions/topics and we can continue the discussion.
Mr Edgar has proven here that he himself is ignorant on science and reality, uneducated, un-intellectual and unprofessional. We have given him more attention than he deserves by giving him an entire page on this wiki wherein he can write as much laughable stuff as he wants. If anyone wants a piece of him, go ahead, I no loner want any, my brain cells can't handle the stupid anymore.
Indirect Answer (IA) SUMMARY
IA1. The topic is life and its course of change.
IA2. The topic is the wrong usage of Natural Selection in scientific field.
IA3. The topic is which is the scientific definition of intelligence
IA4. The topic is the categorization of all Xs and processes
IA5. The topic is that ToE has no categorization method in science
IA6. The topic is which model that could explain a broad topic in reality
IA7. The topic is which model has a complete set of explanation from the origin of life to categorization of all Xs and all processes
IA8. The topic is which is the specific meaning of intelligence
IA9. The topic is changing at will any variable or constant in both science and math
IA10. The topic is the actual application of Natural Selection when explaining the flow of the river.
IA11. The topic is the actual usage of random and non-random in reality
IA12. The topic is life in biology for non-random and not gravity
IA13. The topic is actual model for Biology to explain the whole reality in biological world.
(PLEASE, be specific and be direct to show that you have knowledge in science and in reality when talking/discussing to MrID).
List of Discoveries
General Science. MrIntelligentDesign (MrID or Edgar) had discovered the real nature and explanation of the topic of "intelligence". Researched published article had shown (from Hutter and Legg, arxiv.org) that our present scientific consensus had been using 71 definitions of "intelligence" and those definitions/explanations are just the rewording or renaming of a "natural phenomenon" or "natural process" or simply "non-intelligence", which means, to write it in simple phrase: they are simply "problem-solution". But MrID had shown through his science books that real "intelligence" (if applied in reality) is actually a "problem-solution-solution". From this, our present science could already differentiate and categorize all X in existence and the new <id> called it the "Universal Boundary Line (UBL)", in where a non-intelligence (natural phenomenon) or simply called as naturen is different from intelligence or intelligently made phenomenon or intellen. Edgar further discovered the universal limits of "natural phenomenon" to "importance"... as written below:
0 ≦ P ≦ 1.................... for Probability, (natural probability), naturen
1 ～1.49...................... for instinct…………. naturen-instinct
1.5 ≦ iP ≦ 3................. for iProb, intellen, (iProb = Intelligence Probability or Probability of Intelligence)
Principle of Importance > 3
MrID knew and acknowledged that in Natural Probability (P), the maximum limit is 1, but since reality has many events to be taken in science, he proposed (and discovered) a range of limits to many unsolved phenomenon/events, thus, creating new kind of Probability Calculation in mathematics, in-where the limit goes beyond the maximum limit of Natural Probability (P).
Through this discovery, our science now can answer one of the most difficult questions: is cell intellen or naturen? Is photon of light intellen or naturen? Is life intellen or naturen?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology. Edgar had been claiming through his Biology book that he had a new and different model for the diversity of all living organisms - their origins and their changes with respect to time, surroundings and conditions. He called the new model as "Biological Interrelation, BiTs" or sometimes, he called it "Theory Of Interrelation". According to MrID, BiTs or simply "interrelation" is when our science will use or include the real "intelligence" in biology (a must) as discovered and explained by the new Intelligent Design <id>. The difference between the old model (the Theory of Evolution, ToE) and new model, the BiTs are
#ToE (evolution) is simply defined as "change with time without using the topic of intelligence";
#BiTs (interrelation) is simply defined as "interaction with/through time by using the topic of intelligence". In addition, ToE did not touch the origin of Universe, existence and life but BiTs (since BiTs uses the powerful explanation of the new Intelligent Design <id>) touches the Universe, existence, and life. Thus, BiTs is broader in scope and explanation than ToE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics and Cosmology. Since the new Intelligent Design <id> is a late-comer in the arena of naturalistic science, MrID had been proposing, through the discovery of the new and real "intelligence", the following explanations:
>..(new explanation) That matter is intelligently designed (intellen) for matter follows the rule of existence, in where the rules of existence also follows the principles of intelligence, which means, you will never have existence if you don't have "intelligence" as principle, thus, the appearance of "matter" or mass is not by accident but by intelligence. The old explanation is that matter can possibly popped up itself to its existence with no intelligence, but this is wrong since "intelligence" is already defined, nailed and discovered;
>..(new explanation) That the Universe, existence and life are all intelligently designed (intellen) since in the whole existence, we could see and detect opposites realities like matter and anti-matter, electron and proton, dual nature of particles as particle/wave. If the whole existence did appear without intelligence, it is expected that there will be NO dual nature of particle/photon/electron, there will no anti-matter, etc. The old explanation is just an assumption that the Universe and existence could popped up by itself without considering the topic of "intelligence";
>..(new explanation) That there is no such thing as Uncertainty Principle (UP) in reality since the principle of "intelligence" which follows the principle of certainty/determination forbids it especially when existence is the topic. The old explanation is that the quantum world follows the UP, but that is incorrect scientifically since intelligence will NEVER allow UP for existence like the Universe. Instead, the Certainty Principle (CP) is proposed.
>..(new explanation) That in the experiment for the double slit/holes, the electron/photon of light behaves differently as fired because the electron/photon of light may had been using a two dimensional properties of time as compared to one dimension of time. In the new <id>, time is written like this, time A = A --> A', in where A moves to a certain space and A becomes A' by consuming space and time (not new discovery actually). The old explanation is that there is time dimension. (The idea of "time dimension" was originated by Hugh Ross, but basically explained in detailed by MrID in his book: "PHYSICS of Intelligent Design <id>).
>..Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the best science and best explanation for the age of the Universe and Earth since YEC follows the Counter-Intuitive Principle (CIP) and YEC is one example of counter-intuitive natural phenomenon (CNP), just like the twin paradox, electron entanglement, probabilistic particle, bending of light, etc... they are all examples of CNPs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychology
Philosophy
