Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Goodenough Island: A Sketchy Reminiscence | Main | The Fruits of Vegging Out. »



I think the meta-universe is an infinite creative mind. That is why, according to complexity theory, complex systems are expected to evolve. It is not an accident.

(I didn't read the article yet -- I will try to later.)

NDE (neo-Darwinist evolution) theory says helpful mutations occur by chance (not really by chance, but because of some reason unrelated to evolution), along with lots of unhelpful or harmful ones, and the helpful ones are passed on to offspring.

There are many problems with NDE. No one has ever observed it, for one thing. Evidence for evolution has been observed, in fossils, and natural or artificial selection is easy to observe. We know that selecting certain types of organisms to survive and reproduce, and letting others die, results in modifications, or adaptations.

But no one has seen a new species created in this way. NDE theorists claim it can happen, given long enough periods of time. So they have a theory that cannot be argued against -- given enough time the most improbable events are possible. And now they can also use the theory of parallel universes -- given enough time, AND an infinite number of parallel universes, every impossible thing is certain to happen (sort of like in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe).

You won't believe what Dawkins has come up with as an argument that God cannot possibly exist: He admits that it's impossibly improbable for life to have originated by a series of accidents. (There is no scientific theory about how this could have happened, by the way). But Dawkins says this is evidence against God, not for. If God created life, then God must be even more complex than life, so it was even more unlikely that anything created God.

Of course, Dawkins is assuming God is here in our material temporal world, since Dawkins has very little imagination or understanding of metaphysics.

IDE theory (Intelligent Design theory of evolution) is fiercely opposed by not only Dawkins, but the entire secular left, and possibly even the religous left as well. This is because IDE has become associated with Christian Creationism, which is irrational, authoritarian, and unconcerned with scientific evidence. The IDE movement is partly to blame, because they are backed by right-wing conservative organizations, and because they often use the word "evolution" to mean NDE, and the word "Creationism" to mean IDE.

I believe in a combination of complexity theory and Sheldrake's neo-vitalism. Everything makes sense, in a way, when seen from these perspectives. But this approach will have a hard time getting acceptance from mainstream science, because it depends on a view of the universe as alive and intelligent. Current mainstream science insists that the universe, and nature, are not intelligent.

Once you admit that the universe (or meta-universe, or whatever is the ultimate container of it all) is intelligent, you are a super-naturalist. As opposed to a naturalist. And contemporary science is fiercely naturalistic.

It doesn't matter that physicists are pretty sure there are higher dimensional levels (that sounds like super-nature to me).

Allowing super-naturalism into science would cause problems, because scientists would have to admit that many "superstitious" beliefs from the dark ages actually contain truth. Ghosts, spirits and gods might really exist. Religion and science would no longer be separated by a great impenetrable wall. Parapsychlology would stop being pseudo-science.

So acceptance of IDE would mean a tremendous philosophical revolution for our culture. And I think the ID theorists are going to prove, mathematically, that the origin of new species by chance is just as improbable as the origin of life by chance.

I think that computers will make it possible for IDE to win the debate, and materialist, naturalist science will not survive.

A physicist (I forget his name) has already shown computationally that life could not have originated by accident. And no scientist has ever proposed any plausible theory about how that could have happened.

So the next step, in my opinion, will be a similar proof that new species cannot originate by accident.


Oh by the way, saying new species can't originate by accident does NOT mean some god person put them together and set them down on earth. It means, in my opinion, that new species evolve because the universe is naturally creative and everything in it expresses that creativity. I think there is a natural "law of complexity" which causes complexity to increase with time, resulting in biological and cultural evolution.

Of course, there is also entropy, which causes things to disintegrate and die. Destruction makes room for more creation.

chuck b.

I'm totally fascinated by evolution and would like to know more myself about molecular clocks and genetic markers vis-a-vis evolutionary processes, speciation, divergence, etc.

I've long digged the "emergent properties of matter" angle worked in the complexity theories. The water molecule is a stunning example of emergent properties--such a tiny thing, so simple, and yet, so full of robust properties it boggles the mind to think about what can happen when trillions and trillions of water molecules get together (trillions and trillions of water molecules--that's like almost nothing, but even at that lowly bulk state it's amazing what water can do). I not infrequently lose myself in reveries when gazing at water.

As a general rule, I generally consider myself agnostic about god and metaphysics, but when I happen to be considering DNA or any kind of complex cellular system (as I often do at work), I sometimes feel that we really are connected to something larger. Of course, I think humans have strong, compelling emotional and psychological needs to feel connected to something larger than themselves, and that's going to manifest differently in different people. Me, I don't generally like to spend a lot of time pondering what's going on behind the curtain...I like to watch the show. Which is how I maintain a state of practiced agnosticism.

chuck b.

As a general rule I generally do not edit general comments that I generally make when reading general material, generally speaking.


Chuck -- then you have to take a look at this. And do a Google search on Masaru Emoto to find things like this. He's basically taken your agnostic awe at water and turned it into a new-agey religion. But the "emoto" impulse is understandable.

chuck b.

Okay, wow.


I had no idea...what a hoot.

First of all, this from the amazon link made me lol: "He found that water ... exposed to loving words shows brilliant, complex, and colorful snowflake patterns, while polluted water and water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors."

Second, I wonder how many scientist types I know know about this guy, and whether they secretly think of him when I tell them about my fascination with water...

I have to go skim through this now.


Love and gratitude is the most beautiful crystal to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004