Freudian Slips and the Darwinian Psyché

The famous psycho-analyst Sigmund Freud believed that humans have both a conscious and an unconscious mind. The unconscious mind was said to control a mechanism for dealing with thoughts or feelings that have been repressed by the conscious mind. Sometimes things that people repress are revealed unintentionally through slips of the tongue. These are often referred to as Freudian slips.

When trying to explain how a particular design feature of an animal originated, many Darwinian supporters try to avoid using any verbal expression that indicates the feature was purposefully designed … Clearly, purposeful design requires a Designer. Often very lengthy explanations are adopted to explain how a required feature was transformed into a built-in ubiquitous functionality that became part of the animal’s DNA blueprint.

contactOckham’s Razor states that “of two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred.”

Interestingly, in Carl Sagan’s production Contact (a film distributed by Warner Brothers), Jodie Foster’s atheistic character uses Ockham’s Razor as an argument against the existence of a creator in her discussion with her religously inclined boyfriend, Matthew McConaughey.

Yet the Freudian slips made by Darwinian supporters are clearly the “simpler explanation” even if they are anathema to many scientists.

Note the following examples:

“bacteria … made a choice to use this substrate”
“…the beak grew longer in order to deal with the tougher seeds.”
“…fruit flies needed to change into different kinds in order to live on the different islands.”
“…the Skunk evolved a defense mechanism…”
“…a better defense mechanism was required … evolution provided the answer…”
“nature designed DNA…”
“there is an evolutionary purpose to feeling really sad”
“…the function that the brain evolved to perform.”

There is no need to show further examples; they are replete in numerous works promoting Darwinian Evolution. Darwin proponents excuse the proliferation of these remarks by explaining that they are merely expressions that do not effectively teach the point under discussion, or that only “lesser” scientists are responsible for such faux pas. However, even the highly respected professor, the late Carl Sagan (referred to above), on his TV show Cosmos some decades ago, regarding the need for greater informational storage capacity than DNA, said that, after this need arose, “we slowly invented brains” — the full statement was: “”When our genes could not store all the information necessary for our survival we slowly invented brains.” The temptation to attribute Dynamic principles to evolution nevertheless persists.

What is interesting at this point is a comparison of the above anthropomorphic Freudian slips with the principles of Dynamic Evolution. If a particular functionality is required for survival, a variety of explanations are offered for the existence of principles that explain how Darwin’s evolution “accomplished the task.” The seduction of the principles of Dynamic Evolution seem to be unavoidable:

  • A body system was needed…
  • …therefore an organ (one or more) was needed…
  • …therefore a cell-type was needed…
  • …therefore a special protein-type was needed…
  • …therefore a specially-formed bonding molecule was needed…
  • …therefore a particular atomic element was needed…

Let’s take a contrived example for the purpose of illustration: Construction workers at a manufacturer that produces sophisticated spacecraft… say, a Nasa / IBM / Boeing kind-of conglomerate. There are multiple departments at this plant, which manufactures all of its own components; from the nuts and bolts to the fuselage, from the micro-fibers to the seats, from the Silicon chips to the million-line-code software programs. You approach a number of employees and ask them what work they do. They show you the component that they make, and they’re very skilled. You then ask them what the component does. But they have no idea what part their component plays in the finished product…

How do they know how to make the component? They follow a plan (which corresponds to a set of principles within Dynamic Evolution). A supervisor takes their finished product and assembles it, along with several hundred other components made by equally institutionalized employees, each beavering away in his own specially fitted area of the factory floor. You question the supervisor, but he still doesn’t know what part his assembled component plays in the finished product [he simply observes the pathway within the “latticework Plexus”]. You ask him about the components that his part consists of, but he has no idea how they work.

This occurs throughout five or six levels until a specialist team take each of the final assembled parts and complete the spacecraft construction. You ask each of them about the components the craft is composed of, but they have no idea how the individual components work, they only follow the assembly plan and instructions they have been given. And of course this spacecraft has all the sophistication that human endeavors can muster.

We are now building a picture of a basic example of Dynamic Evolution. For we have not yet advanced beyond the fundamentals; the scale of the Plexus, from its lowest level to its highest, means that it contains intrinsic connections for each of the contextual Entities. Therefore:

  • What use is the plastic coating around the electrical wire unless it is graded appropriately, precision molded, and correctly fitted for insulation?
  • What use is the electrical wire unless it is connected to the proper channels and interfaces?
  • What use are the conduits and channels unless they lead to the power source?
  • What use is the power source unless it is properly configured, active, and provided with the means to keep it topped-up with the “juice” it requires to function?

And, of course, these questions cover all of the components in this large construction project from the very tiny to the very large, involving electrical distribution, fluid transport, air channeling, comfortable and ergonomic furniture, etc. The complete plexus arrangement of component dependencies is vital for the finished product, just as the intrinsic values and members of the Plexus are vital for the existence and continuity of the cubic model.

However, how does this apply to another construction?

  • What use or purpose is this particular group of atoms unless they combine to make a molecule? …
  • What use or purpose is this molecule unless it has the precise balance of properties that enable it to interact and bond with other (appropriate) molecules? …
  • What use or purpose is this single molecule unless it combines with others to make, for example, DNA? …
  • What use or purpose is DNA unless it can contribute to the production of a complete cell? …
  • What use or purpose is this single cell unless it can join with other cells to make an organ (with due apologies to single-celled organisms)? …
  • And of course, what good are all the individual parts unless we have a complete body? …
  • The “contextual Entities” are linked by many unbreakable connections, not just those covered in the bulleted list above; and the sheer volume of these resulting connections is becoming more apparent. But now additional factors are introduced; new segments along the horizontal levels of the 4D Plexus. One such factor is the use of multi-functional components which have dependency links to numerous lines of the complex latticework. The proclivity for Dynamic Evolution in the completion of the above spacecraft is already becoming irresistible. Let us add each of these new factors in turn.
  • Returning to the ‘engraved rock’ illustration expanded upon in The Fundamentals, the new picture (adding the above argumentation into the analogy) now becomes a city-sized piece of ground on which are millions of carefully placed rocks neatly aligned, each bearing its own unique, verbose inscription.
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s