Chapter 4 in Darwin’s Book: The Origin of Species

                Chapter 4 on natural selection in Darwin’s Origin of Species is a brilliant description and explanation of microevolution…not macroevolution.  This is where the creation/evolution debate started.

I believe the 13 different varieties of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos archipelago originally came from a single small group of finches, which found their way to one or more of these islands sometime in the distant past.  The differing program lifestyle habits of each varied finch observed today (it has been said that the differences are so varied now that these finches would likely be classified as subspecies if they were not so closely situated on this island chain) accompanied the physical, inbuilt genetic variation in a correlated way we do not currently understand…and may never understand.

I am not a biologist, ecologist, or paleontologist.  My expertise is in building construction.  But most if not all of the literature pro and con in the creation/evolution debate is amenable to commonsense reasoning by non-expert, scientific laypersons.  For me the weight of the evidence falls on the side of an intelligent designer God, with microevolution providing the inbuilt variableness…evidenced in the human breeding process through artificial selection…that was apparent long before Darwin.

Lions, cheetahs, and leopards most likely diverged or “radiated” from a single ancestral large-sized cat…but their lifestyle habits accompanied their unique physical differences simultaneously in real time…otherwise we have physical improvements for survival that are not put to immediate beneficial use…as a result of lifestyle habits lagging behind in time…which is unacceptable to Darwinism.

The corresponding lifestyle habit change must accompany the beneficial physical variation in order for natural selection to identify and make its “blind” selection…to match the effective utility of artificial selection (intelligent design) in the human breeding of agriculture, livestock, race horses, and dogs, for example…for Darwinism to work.

Yet in nature today we see no transitional intermediates in this regard…no infinitesimal gradations in lifestyle characteristics…but instead discrete, distinct, discontinuous wholes coherently matched with a diversity of varied body-plans…inconceivably vast in number, complexity, and precision.

This parallels the discrete, distinct, discontinuous wholes we can categorize as the adventures of faith of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Ruth, and Esther in the Old Testament…to Joseph and Mary, Peter, Paul, Priscilla and Aquila, Timothy, and Luke in the New Testament, among many others…all connected yet all different…revealing the same God at work in both arenas…in nature and in human redemptive history.

One important question for laypersons to ponder in the creation/evolution debate: Is the hypothetical overlay of naturalism over the obvious gaps of discontinuity in the physical characteristics we see in the living world…a bridge too far to cross…when we add in the small lifestyle habits of program change that must correspond precisely with each and every “selected” character that improves survivability according to Darwinian macroevolutionary theory?

To my thinking the gaps between the lifestyles of flying, swimming, running, leaping, jumping, burrowing, camouflaging, natural instinctive behavior, and conscious human thought…with their accompanying widely divergent physical characteristics…are too large and fundamentally discontinuous to be joined gradualistically in Darwin’s “tree of life”….even when attempting to use creative, hypothetical imagination to close the gaps…in lieu of factual evidence.

The differences in lifestyle programs that perfectly coordinate with the physical differences…that separate a lion from an elephant from a water buffalo from a giraffe from a homo sapien…into complete wholes having distinct and discrete differences with no incrementally transitional intermediates in between their behavioral characteristics…this last piece of commonsense evidence for me removes Darwinian macroevolution out of the range of rational believability.

I think that the scientific pursuit of an understanding of information, in addition to mater and energy, will take us right up to the edge of divine creative methodology.  We possess the intellectual capacity and the cognitive reasoning skills to adventure there.  And it appears to this Christian believer that God has not only left the door wide open for us…through an orderly and intelligible natural world…but has placed so many clues along the path that our scientific journey will eventually reach that edge…if not beyond.

But if it turns out that this is as far as human investigative efforts can go…if it turns out that there is an impassible boundary limit that separates divine creative thought processes beyond which we cannot go…then so be it.  This in itself would be a final definitive answer to our questions about some aspects of ultimate reality…that initially started the modern Scientific Revolution.

That the narrow parameters of human scientific investigation could ever discover the natural explanation for the existence of life, or of self-conscious thought, or of an absolute moral standard, or of such immeasurable and unquantifiable realities as love, friendship, honesty, loyalty, fidelity, determination, ingenuity, bravery, humor, self-sacrifice, and individuality, to name only a few imponderables…is an open question that commonsense I believe would answer in the negative.

Six Key Points on the Reactive Mode…Points Five & Six

Point Five

Fifth, the crossover application of the concept of radical change over time using the analogy to inanimate geological has to be one of the worst in history.

Charles Lyell’s uniformitarianism involving inanimate things like wind, water, tidal, and glacial erosion over long periods of time, creates natural wonders that are functional from start to finish.  A canyon created by water runoff is functional throughout its development.  A river delta formed by sediment deposited over a long period of time is fully functional throughout its intermediate stages.  The Grand Canyon was fully functional when it hypothetically started out as a river being three feet deep and fifty yards wide…eons of time ago…regardless of the catastrophic divulge that carved out its immense dimensions sometime in the far distant past.

To apply this same reality of the continuous functionality of non-living, geological things amenable to radical change over long periods of time, as an analogy to support an argument for a similar functionality in the long road from a single living antecedent to the diversity we observe today in the living world…Darwin’s “tree of life”…is not only unsupported scientifically but is bad philosophy.  Inanimate, non-living things in geology can never be anything other than functional no matter what transitional condition we find them in.  The same cannot be said for living things in a delicately but perfectly balanced ecosystem.

                A main point I want to make in this chapter, and indeed in this book, is that God has high standards and expectations for us.  This is one reason why God composes our journey of faith life-scripts.  Darwinian macroevolution has no high standards.  Something in intermediate transition without a definite trajectory and having a random chance outcome cannot be classified as having high standards and expectations.

When the reactive mode is factored in, nature is downgraded to a system in constant need of corrective debugging utilizing unguided and purposeless trajectories, rather than the near flawless wonder that it is.

In macroevolution there is no high standard of expectation…no optimistic foresight…for a Mount Improbable outcome of functional biological characteristics, because there is not the foresight of a mountaintop in contemplation to aim for.  There is only aimless, dysfunctional meandering in relatively meaningless directions.  Mount Improbable outcomes across the breadth of the diversity of life require foresight, and Darwinian macroevolution by definition lacks foresight.

For Christians, the natural world is a source of pride in our Creator God.  For atheists and agnostics, the natural world is on a par with human created things that need corrective debugging to resolve transitional intermediate imperfections through Darwinian evolution.

Biblical-quality journeys of faith promote higher morality than the philosophy of naturalism fueled by Darwinian macroevolution.  The challenges, difficulties, and adversity inherent in God-composed adventures of faith produce resiliency in the area of moral absolutes, which are meaningless in a God-less, naturalistic worldview.

If a rising tide lifts all boats, the converse is also true.  Remove direction and meaning from life, and replace it with the serendipity of random chance outcomes without any standards or expectations, and we have a global explanation for the underlying cause for many of our cultural, societal problems today.

                If after 150 years of intensive effort the search for macroevolution in the fossil record has failed, instead producing the contrary evidence of the Cambrian Explosion, stasis, and extinction, and if the new information age has exposed the utter incapacity of random chance search strategies to produce function in complex systems, instead requiring the obvious need for intelligent agency…if macroevolution is thereby empirically proved to be a false choice…then the only concept left standing is creationism.

If theism owes any debt of gratitude to Darwinian evolution it is that it narrowed the field down to two and only two choices.  If macroevolution drops out as a candidate, then the only candidate remaining is God.  If this becomes the clear reality in the near future, why would we continue to teach macroevolution in our high schools and colleges, if this promotes the culturally debilitating, aimless, purposeless, philosophy of naturalism?

Point Six

Sixth, and finally, many people working in building construction would say: “Is there any other way than the reactive mode?  Of course we will get out there and start the work and then deal with any problems as they arise.  We don’t have the time to spend sitting around figuring out what might go wrong.”

Many people think the most economical approach in terms of time investment is found in the reactive mode alone.

But the proactive and reactive modes are not subtly nuanced “differences without a distinction.”  In human life-choices they are as fundamentally opposed as can be at the broad, worldview level.  If we are living our lives in the reactive mode in response to whatever comes our way, we will make little progress.

There is nothing random about the life of Jesus.  Yes, Jesus is daily responding to situations as they occur.  But Jesus is never operating in the blind, trial-and-error, random chance search strategy of the response mode.  In John 5:19 Jesus said: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

The miraculous works of Jesus are anything but random.  In John chapter nine the story is told of the healing of a blind man.  The disciples ask Jesus: “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (Jn. 9:2).  The non-random explanation by Jesus, incomprehensible to human understanding now, is: “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (Jn. 9:3).  If in the future we can ask this man in heaven, looking back, if it was worth his previous suffering on earth as a blind man…to be a participant in manifesting the works of God recorded in the gospel of John for untold millions of people to read…my guess is he would say yes…yes it was worth being blind for a period of time so that the miraculous works of God through Jesus might be recorded in the New Testament gospels.

When Jesus stands before Pilate responding to Pilate’s assertion that he has the power to crucify or to release Jesus, Jesus refutes the randomness inherent in this statement by answering: “Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above…” (Jn. 19:11).

There is absolutely nothing random about the proclamation of Jesus in the synagogue of Nazareth: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Lk. 4:21), boldly, clearly, and confidently connecting Himself to the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 61:1-2.

A God-composed journey of faith life-script, and a journey of self-reliance apart from God, are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Darwinian macroevolution promotes the idea of responding to chance events in life in the reactive mode…leading nowhere.  The biblical narrative stories of faith tell us that God has unique life-plans for each of us that are steeped in purpose, meaning, and direction.  The competing issues at stake here are enormous…they are not superficial, not minor, not inconsequential, and not random…but rather located at the fundamental point of the meaning of life itself.

One goal of this chapter is to try to dispel the notion that atheists own science.  Science belongs to everyone…to all thinking persons…theists and atheists alike.

If after 500 years of the modern scientific quest to rid mankind of superstition, folklore, magic, witchcraft, and “old-wives tales”…if this effort reveals unmistakable patterns of complex information arranged to create living creatures, which clearly points towards design by intelligent agency by means currently outside of our understanding…then our worldview philosophy will simply have to change and adapt to include this new reality…as it has numerous times over the last 500 years.

Six Key Points on the Reactive Mode…Points Two & Three

Point Two

Second, in housing construction, if the project manager cannot schedule in advance the start of activity B before activity A is actually done, and cannot schedule the start of C until B is done, and cannot schedule the start of D until C is done, then the gaps of time-lag between the end of each activity A through D and the delayed start-up of each succeeding activity would result in a house that cannot be completed on time.  Whether using subcontractors or self-perform crews, the person managing the work must be able to confidently plan the start and the completion of each activity successively head-to-tail and head-to-tail, without time-lag delays in between, using intelligent foresight, if the project is to be completed and delivered on time.

A non-expert looking at the enormous diversity of life might come to the very reasonable judgment, given the degree of complexity easily perceived in the natural world, that if time-lag delays inherent in the reactive mode of individually distinct, short-sighted responses not possessing foresight…actually existed in reality…the duration of the universe to produce this diversity of life on earth would require 14 trillion years rather than the current rough estimate of 14 billion years.

Given all of the coordination required between factors within the various levels from the microscopic to the ecosystem biosphere to the planetary solar system to the cosmic dimensions of the galaxies in the universe itself, a reasonable non-expert looking at the diversity of life might assume it would take an eternity of time if using the inefficient, trial-and-error, random chance search strategy of Darwinian macroevolution, in the reactive mode.

Point Three

Third, I have worked for several owners of housing construction companies who were very strong in the artistic areas of architecture and interior design, but very weak in the areas of managing people and organizing activities in the field.

The point here relating to genetic mutations randomly acted upon by natural selection…in a totally free and unmanaged system…is that not managing in business is not a liberated, human-resources enlightened, philosophically free-thinking approach to management…it is simply not managing.  Even if the route to achieving the diversity of life we see in the natural world came through a reactive mode of information generation, by what appeared on the outside to be a totally unguided, random process…which I totally reject…this process would still be so complex in its formulation that it would require the foresight and guidance of intelligent design nonetheless.

The hands-off, unguided approach of non-management simply does not work for complex systems.

If the housing construction field supervisor did stand in the middle of the vacant building lot, and devised from scratch all of the required architectural, engineering, and interior design on the spot, while creatively inventing each construction trade activity in-the-moment as required…all of the mountains of information to design and build a house would simply be embodied in this one field supervisor.  The required information to construct a complex thing like a house does not go away.  An intelligent designer is still needed…whether in this illustrative, hypothetical reactive mode of one individual creating in-the-moment…or in the more broadly conventional, proactive mode of established “standard of the industry” bodies of information spread out over many disciplines, institutions, and groups of people working together.

The philosophy of naturalism postulates the existence of no designer present on the scene at all…the various building materials in the form of living cells and the integrated body-plans of plants, insects, fish, birds, and mammals all find a way through random chance assemblage to self-manufacture themselves into functioning life-forms.

Six Key Points on the Reactive Mode…Point One

I would like to add a few more key points about the reactive mode before moving on.

First, a person operating in the reactive mode can become familiar, comfortable, and sophisticated in its use over time.  After years of experience operating in the reactive mode, a person can encounter a large number of problems and pragmatically improvise workable solutions.  This is one way that the small business owner can develop the business growth stifling attitude of: “I have to do everything myself because I am the only one who can do things right.”  Or more concisely: “I alone have all the answers.”

But once stuck in the relentlessly time-consuming routine of the reactive mode of problem-solving…answering questions and resolving issues inefficiently one-at-a-time, in-the-moment as they arise…it becomes increasingly difficult to break free and find the extra time to formulate a transition to a more methodical, proactive approach because we become bogged-down in the daily crisis management of “putting out fires” that come along unexpectantly and inconveniently according to their timing and not ours.

The natural world in terms of the variety of living forms is certainly much more complicated than any human enterprise.  If initially the diversity of life progressed from the simple to the complex through the reactive mode of genetic mutations acted upon by natural selection, the expanding “cone of diversity” postulated by Darwin would continually overwhelm the reactive mode, guaranteeing that the natural world would still to this day be likewise stuck in the catch-up mode of inefficient response and reaction.

The reactive mode never got started in biology as the motive force of creative diversity because the reactive mode is currently not self-evident in biology today.  The genetic variation, adjustments, and fine-tuning in the biological world are confined to microevolution alone…which is peripheral and remedial…not constructive, not creative, not macro in scope.  If nature used genetic mutation and natural selection as its creative, informational formulation method in the reactive mode, it would still be stuck in this process today and easy to detect.

The Reactive Mode and Darwinian Evolution

How does this relate to the conceptual approach in biology of theoretically extrapolating microevolution into macroevolution?

A casual, unsophisticated observer on a housing construction site might reasonably misinterpret the field supervisor verbally discussing issues, giving directions, and waving their arms for workers on the jobsite to go here or there and to do this or that, in-the-moment in the reactive mode, incorrectly assuming this visual representation to be the main creative source of the information that designs and builds the house.

What this casual observer is actually witnessing on the jobsite in terms of information dissemination is miniscule in relation to the mountain of information already in-place that forms the “body-plan” design and construction of the house.

Charles Darwin observing the variations among finches on the Galapagos Islands in the middle 1830’s might reasonably infer that what he was witnessing was the creative process in action, totally unaware of the massive body of information contained in the microscopic world of DNA not discovered until a hundred and twenty years later in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson.  Without an understanding of the mountain of information that supports the genetic makeup and the incredibly complex body-plan architecture of a finch or any other type of bird, Darwin at the time would be like the casual observer on the housing construction site mistakenly interpreting in-the-moment problem-solving in the reactive mode as the main creative force, rather than merely a few fine-adjustments being made at the marginal periphery of the total information package.

The action of problem-solving in the reactive mode in housing construction is easily recognized, even when mistakenly misinterpreted by the casual, unsophisticated observer.  Problem-solving in the reactive mode becomes even more clearly recognized when it beneficially translates into a written, hard-copy, documented feedback loop of information directly communicated back to the design and construction team to be proactively re-designed and field managed out of the construction of future projects entirely.  Looking for and identifying the reactive mode in housing construction is easy.  It is like looking for something easy to find in broad daylight…with a flashlight.

In the microscopic world of DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, and in the diverse body-plans formulated at the initial division of embryonic cells, we do not see any feedback loop of information that would constitute the main creative informational basis for the physical and lifestyle variation of living things we observe in the natural world.

Natural selection, as far as science can tell, as well as by definition, is entirely in the reactive mode.  The mountain of creative information in the living cell and its DNA is already there, fully functioning, and in-place.  The differences in genes that produce the slight variations within species that allow for adaptation to differing ecosystem habitats are already in existence.

The genetic based variations in Darwin’s finches that allows for their survival amidst cyclical weather pattern changes on the Galapagos Islands chain are already in operation.  The inbuilt variability in finch characteristics, adapting to cyclical weather changes affecting habitat conditions, producing temporarily oscillating fluctuations in the relative populations of the thirteen types of finches identified on the Galapagos archipelago, was fully functioning in the mid-1830’s when Darwin first observed this phenomenon.

This microevolutionary process in the reactive mode does not cause fluctuations in the main body-plan architecture of Darwin’s finches.  Genetic variation is not putting out radically creative characteristics that can be naturally selected that would alter Darwin’s finches into something entirely different like a hybrid finch/duck or a finch/hawk or a finch/goose…yet this is the central motive force theorized for common descent.

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.

Charles Darwin did not know about DNA and the molecular machinery in living cells, the inconceivably massive amount of information that went into the Big Bang creation of the universe, or the intelligently designed information that goes into computer software code that crystalized for us the concept of information theory within the last three decades.  Darwin did not know about the enormous base of information content that forms functional systems.  Without this perspective it might be understandable to form enthusiasm for the theory of macroevolution.  But today we are now clearly knowledgeable about these things.

The well-ordered and intelligible precision of the natural world appears to be designed because it is not in the reactive mode.  Natural selection applying genetic variation to procure survivability, and in some rare cases utilizing beneficial mutations to produce permanent variation within species, occurs at the peripheral edges of the total information packages of living things…defined as microevolution.

The natural world can be said to be divinely created by an Intelligent Designer precisely because it is not in the reactive mode.  What we observe in the natural world is not the reactive mode.  What we see in the natural world is not dynamic, obvious, universal change in the middle of reactive transitional revisions continually leading towards radically new life-forms.

Darwinian macroevolution…using the methodology of natural selection responding one-at-a-time to random chance genetic mutations…is a human construction overlaid upon the biological world.  Microevolution extrapolates to macroevolution only if naturalism projects its philosophy over the facts…a philosophy that is no longer tenable in light of our modern understanding of the enormous amounts of information contained within DNA, the Cambrian Explosion, and the Big Bang.

The Reactive Mode

In housing construction, field supervisors can take a reactive or a proactive approach to answering questions, problem-solving, and issues resolution.  The reactive approach responds after-the-fact to issues one at a time, in-the-moment, as they arise.  By contrast the proactive approach attempts to identify potential questions, problems, and issues ahead of time with the aim at prevention before some problem or mistake occurs.

The reactive mode has some clear advantages.  Problem-solving in the reactive mode is a sure thing, because it only deals with actual problems and questions.  The reactive mode invests no time upfront on the prevention of hypothetical future problems that might or might not occur.  The reactive mode is an approach that simplistically assumes the risk that most of the bad things that can happen won’t happen…and those bad things that do materialize into real problems we will deal with individually when the time comes.

A difficult thing to account for after-the-fact in hindsight, in the proactive approach, is how to calculate a value for the successful prevention of a negative that did not occur.  This difficulty tends to lend a degree of artificial credence to the reactive approach because it has the outward appearance of actively solving real problems…of actually, physically doing something.  The proactive approach of successful prevention has nothing to show for itself in terms of noticeable action because prevented issues do not surface…do not materialize into real problems that need to be fixed.

The obvious downside to the reactive mode is that it waits until problems actually mature into reality before the reactive mode for problem-solving kicks-in.  The reactive mode first requires the problem to identify itself in concrete material reality, after which it is too late for proactive prevention.  This is expressed in the old classic truism in building construction that “pencil erasers are cheaper than concrete erasers.”

Although there is some reactive mode problem-solving on every building construction project, which falls into the category of unavoidable assembly-line debugging, the reactive mode is generally the default field management approach in single-family residential construction for inexperienced novices.  People entering into housing construction from other fields such as law, accounting, engineering, or real estate fall back upon the most expedient approach of dealing with individual field problems individually as they arise, as a matter of necessity rather than choice, because they do not as yet have the construction background to formulate an effective, methodical, proactive system for prevention utilizing past “what not to do” debugging information.

There is a close analogy between the conceptual approach of natural selection acting upon genetic mutations, by definition in the reactive mode, and the reactive mode as seen in housing construction.

Novices inexperienced in housing construction can successfully operate in the reactive mode in responding to field problems one at a time…because they are sitting atop a mountain of pre-existing housing design and field “means and methods” bodies of information in the form of architectural and engineering plans, and established building trades practices, that will get the house eventually constructed regardless of reactive or proactive problem-solving occurring at the marginal edge of the operations.

The same is true for mass-production assembly-line manufacturing.  The initial trial-run debugging phase, before full production begins, is made possible by the mountain of information already embodied in the design of the product and the mechanical engineering and robotics technology invested in the assembly-line process.

Likewise, the debugging of computer software program code may involve the locating and removal of only a few scattered lines of defective computer language code hidden amongst thousands of correct lines of final-draft program code that make up the architecture of the soon-to-be successfully functioning software program.

In other words, even though “bugs” in the design plans or “human-error” mistakes made in the field by tradespersons can cause time delays, cost overruns, and poor quality, the actual information content addressed in the reactive mode in resolving these issues in housing construction is infinitesimal compared to the massive body of entirely correct and functional information contained within the “standards of the industry” technology in-place through design plans and established building trades practices.

Problem-solving in the reactive mode is not a part of the massive body of information that makes up the creation of the originally designed product, whether a new house, a computer software program, or tens of thousands of assembly-line manufactured automobiles.  It takes the outside addition of an auxiliary, separate, and novel feedback loop of identifying and recording field problems one at a time, communicated back to the design team through sketches, photographs, and explanatory text, in order to integrate reactive mode problem-solving information backwards from the field into the main body of design and construction technology.

The reactive mode is thereby translated into practical, “concrete,” proactive prevention which then can eliminate future housing design and construction problems from occurring.

Gradual Cumulative Selection

Climbing the “Mount Improbable” of Richard Dawkin’s explanation for the accumulation of small, incrementally beneficial steps fails to recognize that a totally free and random system built on chance alone will not go straight up the gradual backside slope of the mountain toward an optimum end-point destination, but may also …according to unguided random chance…regress backwards or sideways down the slope in an endlessly undirected series of futile “wrong turns” in science referred to as “junk.”

That the hundreds of billions of different plants, trees, bacteria, fungi, insects, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals would all reach the level of functionality, survivability, and adaptability in a balanced worldwide ecosystem…is more akin to an intelligently designed worldwide air-traffic control system or a well-run, big city train station…than to some random chance assemblage of complex parts that somehow…without foresight…lock into place (accumulate) beneficial variations for future use.

If the atheistic philosophy of naturalism is true then someone might reasonably ask: “what is wrong with the material particles” to produce such a contrary reality of evil and suffering in the world?

All of the breadth and depth of reality, good and bad, does not originate from physical matter.  The creative artistry of Chopin’s Ballade No. 2 does not derive from the statics and mechanics of the length of the piano keys, the density hardness of the felt hammers, and the physical tension of the strings.

Our commonsense judgment can step in at some point and transcendently insist that logic, reason, and artistic creativity are not determined by material particles.

Post-modern relativism renders the viewpoints of everyone equally suspect, including the philosophy of naturalism.  Materialism, at its extreme end-point in trying to reduce human intelligence and communication to an explanation solely based upon the properties of material particles alone, dissolves itself.

If our thinking, reasoning, and judgments are based upon the material particles in our heads alone, then what differentiates the value of one opinion over another opinion?  What differentiates the value of the information content of a four-year old sitting at the piano banging out random noise without pattern or melody, and the 10-year old playing a Chopin prelude at her first music recital?

The same charge that atheists and agnostics rail at the biblical God today regarding the inexplicable presence of evil and suffering in the world turns back upon themselves in having to explain the presence of morally deficient, faulty particles in the solely materialistic scheme of naturalism.