The casual observer witnessing the field supervisor directing the work on the jobsite, answering questions and resolving problems in the reactive mode, does not result in the house design “type” radically changing mid-stream from a traditional New England Cape Cod architecture to something entirely different like Wallace Neff’s Santa Barbara/Montecito style architecture, circa 1928 to 1932…there are not even existing or imaginable, transitional intermediate hybrids between the two.
Once construction of the house begins, the design “type” of the house remains the same except for slight changes and modifications consistent within the parameters of that architectural style. Moving a few interior walls a few inches this way or that way to improve function…additional space for door casing to fit or for kitchen cabinets to fit…does not affect the overall architectural design. When successful hybrids do occur in building design they are the product of intelligent agency…intelligently conceived aesthetic and functional design considerations.
In editing and re-editing and fine-tuning this book, the addition of one key word here and there can greatly improve what I am trying to say. One key word will improve a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, and even a portion of a chapter. But a substitution of a key word for a previously chosen word will not change the whole book.
The very rare genetic mutations that are advantageous, acted upon by natural selection, by definition occur in the reactive mode alone. These advantageous genetic mutations are no more a part of the massive systems of creative information that make up the body-plans of living organisms, than the problem-solving in the reactive mode in housing construction that occurs at the peripheral margins of building design and construction technology.
The notion that macroevolution is said to be a massive collection of infinitesimally small genetic improvements…actually relegates genetic variability and natural selection to the peripheral, outer edges of the body-plans of living things…because functional survivability is not achieved until full development.
The water buffalo newborn on the African savanna plain must be up and running within 20 minutes of birth to keep up with its mother and stay protectively within the herd. The pathway through inception to embryological development to functional survivability requires foresight…a conceptual leap across from DNA architecture to mature functioning life-form…which contains too much information, too much foresight, and far too much integrated complexity to be anything other than intelligently designed.
The problem with a thoroughly gradualistic scenario is that it requires a leap across a large number of intermediate, non-functional, developmental stages to reach the mature point of function.
But how would function leap across non-function without premeditated foresight? The growing infant water buffalo in the womb of its mother cannot forego any of the embryological development phases, yet does not reach the point in time of functional survivability until birth.
Common descent as the key element in Darwinian evolution requires innumerable, infinitesimally small improvements acted upon by natural selection, to be plausible as a purely naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life we see today. Yet the reactive mode has no place in embryological development. The embryological phase of every living thing is a premature time-period of non-survivability…of non-viability…where the reactive mode has no influence. The functional “survival of the fittest” has no applicable meaning in the embryological development phase. Premeditated foresight is needed to bridge the gap between DNA architecture and the fully formed “essence” of the life-form in its functionally mature, unique approach to survival…whether plant, tree, insect, fish, reptile, bird, or mammal.